Re: [6lo] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-02
Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 19 July 2019 23:39 UTC
Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB338120033; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 16:39:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 SAuyBaAZ2c7c; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 16:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BE93120071; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 16:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.142.118] (unknown [207.115.96.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 45r6sX4dvhzywT; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 01:39:12 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <9FB7A26F-B27F-4719-B0B6-99C9BF817EA0@tzi.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 19:39:11 -0400
Cc: Carles Gomez Montenegro <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>, "draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 585272349.50991-1f5c3ec1a47de6d9fc7f1814f29895bd
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <36F58974-E158-4F22-A2C3-47575977B361@tzi.org>
References: <e463b1578b1772379eba2fbb4b035015.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu> <MN2PR11MB3565EB2836C0D546D7820852D8CB0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <9FB7A26F-B27F-4719-B0B6-99C9BF817EA0@tzi.org>
To: Pascal Thubert <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/aYCjcPeygL2POtlzGtiLjQneiSU>
Subject: Re: [6lo] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-02
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 23:39:17 -0000
On Jul 19, 2019, at 17:33, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote: > > On Jul 19, 2019, at 17:08, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote: >> >> Actually we use the term Low Power Lossy Network beyond 6lo, e.g., in ROLL. >> I'd rather keep the term but certainly expand it on first use. > > I’d rather get rid of it. The document is about 6LoWPAN/6lo and its way to fragment packets. You don’t have to run RPL to use fragment forwarding. RFC 7102 specifically says its terminology is for ROLL work, so I won’t say anything about using that there, but it is not very accurate otherwise. Grüße, Carsten
- [6lo] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-f… Carles Gomez Montenegro
- Re: [6lo] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-6lo-minim… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [6lo] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-6lo-minim… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [6lo] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-6lo-minim… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [6lo] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-6lo-minim… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [6lo] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-6lo-minim… Carles Gomez Montenegro