Re: [6lo] 6lo Digest, Vol 6, Issue 7 - Charter-04 proposal
Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 08 October 2013 20:19 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 3744C21F87B7 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:19:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.164
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.164 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.085, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mdp91dW5FeSW for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:19:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15F8121F88DD for <6lo@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:19:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r98KJ3gQ026671; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:19:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p5489368E.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.54.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A9AC1B73; Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:19:03 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <DUB112-W69AEB4E3993B1974B1C9CAC1C0@phx.gbl>
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 22:19:01 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0C9447CE-4FCF-428C-A170-94063DB39026@tzi.org>
References: <mailman.110.1381258860.21585.6lo@ietf.org> <DUB112-W69AEB4E3993B1974B1C9CAC1C0@phx.gbl>
To: Shahid Raza <periodic@live.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6lo] 6lo Digest, Vol 6, Issue 7 - Charter-04 proposal
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discussion of a 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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 20:19:54 -0000
Shahid, the entirety of RFC 6282 would fall under "applicable to more than one adaptation layer specification" (it is currently being referenced by BT-LE, lowpanz, 6lobac, dect-ule). One example that we had in mind when that phrase was coined was GHC. So why would draft-raza-6lowpan-ipsec-01, which just plugs into the NHC extension point of RFC 6282, like GHC does, not be? Grüße, Carsten
- Re: [6lo] 6lo Digest, Vol 6, Issue 7 - Charter-04… Shahid Raza
- Re: [6lo] 6lo Digest, Vol 6, Issue 7 - Charter-04… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [6lo] 6lo Digest, Vol 6, Issue 7 - Charter-04… Shahid Raza