Dario Tedeschi <dat@exegin.com> Thu, 07 June 2012 23:34 UTC

Return-Path: <dat@exegin.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3EA021F85C9 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mS6RmFQidIfy for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B16F21F85C2 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by dacx6 with SMTP id x6so1555715dac.31 for <roll@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=JKEJipADJramXawyZPMkDEUEsJncdisDrQVl/l546vU=; b=dNXcQZl2qr/sIyzwK79yGBSN9bCzgCIpAFKgYmS6SedDcifB15Ij3Bf8BTcyqOdzE0 Vy3U3te6mEazeX0jscVW4g8K3gS+xs3bmauuP7xHaARSGzdFUmLW/i7OWAFLUEzLdiLk 6Cv78DDVzePdLfmjp0w0unRA3alPnmRRuKYsCvEjjyIv8FhsSCo130fVNqjCFf8appK/ Db/J4NbGBGbBkeMEGduoJiGTcO18fA2FjUk2N8XApNSdmSCvvvofR4JvdkP6oiqGhrjd UK+06I3Q6qy/+EeVqn/0u9T7ISSNK1HnRXl0IqP/uqNJ/SJeOVgDapwKrniYvGkV4uGG Jh6A==
Received: by with SMTP id sb3mr14007959pbc.74.1339112075267; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:34:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ku7sm5652093pbc.31.2012. (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:34:34 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4FD13A8D.2010703@exegin.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:34:37 -0700
From: Dario Tedeschi <dat@exegin.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:7.0) Gecko/20110922 Thunderbird/7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Philip Levis <pal@cs.stanford.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkoA6x9UXQgPObrS4n2g97dnbiOzuBGIH+HAPaQoomra77+HsUye07oals32fnPZAUSM9K+
Cc: 'ROLL WG' <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: [Roll] MRHOF ETX
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 23:34:36 -0000

Hi Philip

When MRHOF refers to ETX, is it the ETX value as defined in RFC6551 
(i.e. ETX * 128) or some ETX value defined by implementation?

Could this be made more clear in the spec, because we are currently 
having a discussion in ZigBee-IP as to what this value should be?