Re: [Roll] [6tisch] call for consensus for the RPL RPI / RH3 compression

Hi,

my 5 cents. I like flow label, but we (at 6tisch) discussed for a very long
time the approach to be taken (NHC and lately the new draft that also
compresses RH3). I will support it (flow label) but IMHO we have to make
sure there is no other thing we can do to make the current proposal at 6lo
to move forward or at least get strong arguments against it. In terms of
coherence, NHC it seems a more natural way to go as we are extending the
use of the dispatch and headers are all parsed following a coherent rule.

regards,
Xavi

2014-12-18 17:39 GMT+01:00 Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>:
>
>
> Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
>     > We are now in last call for draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-04 which
>     > describes an interoperable operation of RPL over 802.15.4e TSCH.
>
> ...
>
>     > My personal take is lex parsimoniae. By default, we should fall back
> to
>     > the simplest to implement, which is also the least change in existing
>     > implementations, and that is the original flow label approach; and
> I'm
>     > calling the group for consensus on that default approach.
>
>     > What do you think?
>
> Not wearing any hat: I'm personally happy with the flow label approach.
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6tisch mailing list
> 6tisch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>
>