IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6tisch] #41 (minimal): intended status for draft minimal

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 01 December 2015 18:29 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07F101B2EC9 for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 10:29:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 RaVarstxWI1H for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 10:29:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FA541B2EB4 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 10:29:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24C492009E; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 13:34:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id E56C563757; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 13:29:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A29F763753; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 13:29:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <17bfd83b0a4f4c2aaa3aaf18ca759cd0@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <060.92a20915e49c32f8bffbbbb0b4a66869@tools.ietf.org> <075.1f97e51c53b1c124937a2b6c7fca39d7@tools.ietf.org> <a864c3f122d24d638adf712ed92054cd@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <565C8BC8.900@berkeley.edu> <565C8E1E.3040106@innovationslab.net> <565C8EB7.5000902@berkeley.edu> <565C911C.4070209@innovationslab.net> <6764bccfd3074fbe87dfba3ea8d9afc3@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <12300.1448978883@sandelman.ca> <17bfd83b0a4f4c2aaa3aaf18ca759cd0@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 24.4.2
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: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 13:29:03 -0500
Message-ID: <3102.1448994543@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/qAw3cflabqyQHFp16vLMPJALhXE>
Cc: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] #41 (minimal): intended status for draft minimal
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 18:29:07 -0000

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
    >> Do we?  Are we using ND for 6CO exchange?

    > Not yet, and minimal does not specify that since it does not change it
    > from the behavior of a 6LoWPAN node. The architecture sh/could.

    >> Do we support ND-only nodes that don't speak RPL, 6top or minimal?

    > The architecture does mention that as a goal, but we are missing the
    > work at ROLL and 6lo.
    > This is exactly where minimal reuses whatever is in the environment for
    > that, the environment being the current state of 6LoWPAN on normal
    > 802.15.4.
    > Do you mean that we should be explicit in saying the a minimal node
    > must support at least 6LoWPAN RFCs xxxx?

I'm saying that an IP-over-FOO(802.15.4e) should probably say these things.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email