[6lo] mic comment about layers

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Mon, 20 July 2015 17:29 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8038E1B2CFB for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.982
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.982 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I_QOaKdbyAlv for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:29:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.145]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEAF91B2CF4 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id t6KHTBSf020380 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 19:29:11 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 573F0205249 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 19:32:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D1D92051CF for <6lo@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 19:32:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.84.3]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id t6KHT94R023464 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 19:29:11 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
To: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <55AD2FE5.8040602@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 19:29:09 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000902040005080801090601"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/_Y12FaWM7nS7nHWt1565d_HKsGo>
Subject: [6lo] mic comment about layers
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:29:15 -0000

Hello,

I wanted to make a comment at the mic about layering, during the IANA 
registry discussion.

As I hear the discussion about liaison with ITU, it looks to me as a 
ping-pong of statements.

Who is responsible to allocate these codepoints - IANA or ITU?

Even if IANA makes a registry for it, are we sure that ITU will not 
allocate in the future other codepoints beyond what IANA allocates?  
And, should we care?

My oppinion on this is that IANA should not allocate numbers to whatever 
runs below IPv6 headers.

Let the underlying layers (below IP) offer IEEE-like interfaces, with 
EtherTypes.  That's what works.

Alex