[6tisch] section 11.2 of minimal
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 06 August 2016 19:20 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3220012D0E2 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Aug 2016 12:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.148
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_PASS=-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 AmixdKFDBLbl for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Aug 2016 12:20:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B464B12D0DE for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Aug 2016 12:20:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04060200A5 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Aug 2016 15:30:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB1F1638BE for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Aug 2016 15:20:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Attribution: mcr
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2016 15:20:19 -0400
Message-ID: <5548.1470511219@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/i14LMVbX-Pmzr7YjYyqYX5-Z9oI>
Subject: [6tisch] section 11.2 of minimal
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss link layer model for Deterministic IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e, and impacts on RPL and 6LoWPAN such as resource allocation" <6tisch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6tisch/>
List-Post: <mailto:6tisch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2016 19:20:23 -0000
Should section 11.2 reference ROLL's useofrpi document rather than RFC6282 now? 11.2. RPL Configuration In addition to the Objective Function (OF), nodes in a multihop network using RPL MUST indicate the preferred mode of operation using the MOP field in the DIO. Nodes not being able to operate in the specified mode of operation MUST only join as leaf nodes. RPL information and hop-by-hop extension headers MUST follow [RFC6553] and [RFC6554] specification. In the case that the packets formed at the LLN need to cross through intermediate routers, these MUST follow the IP in IP encapsulation requirement specified by the [RFC6282] and [RFC2460]. Routing extension headers such as RPI [RFC6550] and SRH [RFC6554], and outer IP headers in case of encapsulation MUST be compressed according to [I-D.ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch] and [I-D.ietf-6lo-paging-dispatch]. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
- Re: [6tisch] section 11.2 of minimal Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- [6tisch] section 11.2 of minimal Michael Richardson