Re: [6lo] Draft wording for liaison statement

Le 21/07/2015 12:34, Ralph Droms a écrit :
> We held a hum regarding the content of a liaison statement to send to
> ITU-T SG15 in response to the recent liaison statement from SG15.  The
> WG has been asked to respond by Friday.  Included below is a rough
> transcription of the words I used in the hum yesterday.  Scott, Samita,
> Gabriel, James and I will write up the final liaison statement for
> transmission to SG-15 on Friday.  If you have any comments on the
> *content* (not the specific language, which we will likely rewrite) of
> the text, please comment to the list by Thursday.
>
> -----
>
> The IETF will not change the definitions of the code points specified in
> RFC 4944 and RFC 6282, as published in IANA registry "IPv6 Low Power
> Personal Area Network Parameters"
> <http://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/_6lowpan-parameters.xhtml>,
> in such a way as to affect the ITU-T G.9903 and G.9905 specifications.

I agree, it is neutral enough.

But I dont understand why is IANA reserving anything below the IP layer?

Provided there is an explanation for it that I missed (sorry), I dont 
understand why IANA is not reserving something for the IPv6 Base Header 
altogether - a simple plain IPv6 Base Header uncompressed.?

> The IETF 6lo working group offers to collaborate with ITU-T SG15 in
> establishing a new registry for the code points following the ESC
> dispatch code.  This new registry will be populated at the time of its
> establishment with the Command ID values as defined in G.9903 and G.9905.

I can agree to it.  But I still need to understand why IANA needs to 
control this.

Alex

>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lo mailing list
> 6lo@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
>