Return-Path: X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8E691A8857; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:27:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.687 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.687 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 OezDjp7M9JwH; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:27:32 -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 816F41A8851; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 11:27:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B51D720012; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:32:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id A3F2B63AE9; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:27:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B16D63AD5; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:27:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: <456B8E96-0AB0-4F18-B8A3-601EBAFDDEC4@tzi.org> References: <037472BD-E257-4561-8A07-988039DD4641@nestlabs.com> <2992BA1F-147C-4652-B713-D2F31F45F74F@tzi.org> <0FE1C6E1-EBA2-431D-A2DB-1C3874234827@tzi.org> <456B8E96-0AB0-4F18-B8A3-601EBAFDDEC4@tzi.org> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1 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 Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/Va3wFyMgMYXf5Tz1o7zNLtxS1ho Cc: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Roll] [6lo] Fwd: Comparison of 6lo-rpl drafts X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 18:27:33 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Carsten Bormann wrote: > There already was a common WGLC between ROLL and 6man. > Initially, there was some flexibility on the 6man side along the lines > of =E2=80=9Cif you really have to do this=E2=80=9D. > Once it was demonstrated that there is no actual need to hijack the > flow label, the sentiment shifted. > I see little point in repeating this experiment. The 6man WG chairs have not confirmed the conclusion of Ines and I, and we did not observe wuch a "shift". One 6man co-chair is on paternity leave, so perhaps we will still hear from them. =2D- Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works -=3D IPv6 IoT consulting =3D- --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEVAwUBVCG7k4CLcPvd0N1lAQKHWAgAgGvhQhZFmz5k8ZkgesNk3OnmQnA5uZKQ 7l6aTRwE+3cbpjg7KDeEENJtsdYjhSJX8lwBCT3e9HFI186OwhH0lNNcdThBQJaf sVpDP8B/sYjC/UJooBkct78WafYxGMOPmWq4YUcHq0XRvZhEaodmiYdBlJ3PZvA1 jbd5zA+1CkIspHiBchIfD7n56tbNAV0qtnMs1gvw1wadJAdce7FxuEjMIq0j8edU R6PTlJHyeMbFLjTBUSWYqXII99/V0jlRfOX9U28yeJVWFa2JsxhLtZlgxMmHN2dh gWSlAHebpbRV/UPtIyMn5fDoNVll66PTMnAzctyinFGYylng687qwg== =tuQf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--