Re: [Roll] 6lo Digest, Vol 31, Issue 18

Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> Tue, 01 December 2015 21:29 UTC

Return-Path: <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
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 C99841A01A1; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 13:29:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.377
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 A_qS2112CzB9; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 13:29:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22f.google.com (mail-lf0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49ABB1A0178; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 13:28:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by lfdl133 with SMTP id l133so26249966lfd.2; Tue, 01 Dec 2015 13:28:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=9dzQ/1rWBtIA4SDuCiHErWSnuqfrXQmZA33BWem0FVA=; b=kEFx2zZ45nDfJ8ncXkUC2uVbuj9+FIe6jfQaXPRwN37XomRy1Y1apfHgkRHXx+aF4g e7+HCU3r2D9amjarUCYecibgfmCdXsSdhzVCS/gABoTjlhaVRQhBOpBePSnuuEzadnWK hET1SWQ1LTSz1C74JCRc7w/BgqPGmP4dH0wjL4zi+skjClx41uEXfZeT6IvalNBPUmOh fvSbdf9VpgIxljbXMgndzp7yRFlPtj8nmy5dLUKVCp0EjGNrNCxfGtM5qolIbOw3qFQD UQpNEodF2QbGLz8c2ziklGcJ2ZSE9JxueT9ygOVpeCsZhtCo9gyDSycTfLSJyS92o3Sn AmuA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.126.106 with SMTP id mx10mr23870435lbb.3.1449005336403; Tue, 01 Dec 2015 13:28:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.25.151.78 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 13:28:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1008.1447790831.2690.6lo@ietf.org>
References: <mailman.1008.1447790831.2690.6lo@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 23:28:56 +0200
Message-ID: <CAP+sJUfuvU3v7i2gi61uw0OQ0i-8-smhzEFMO=u_c4BTq-PcwQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
To: "6lo@ietf.org WG" <6lo@ietf.org>, roll <roll@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c37a8e5aa6860525dcd813"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/cgNtfUdeRbNAa2TbhslQR1K3KMY>
Subject: Re: [Roll] 6lo Digest, Vol 31, Issue 18
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:29:09 -0000

Hi,

I support this adoption.

Few nits:

- it would be nice to have a definition for sur-compression,

- expand NALP (it was in version 3.3 v. 06)

- In section 6 I think instead of "If a non-RPL router receives a packet
with a RPI-6LoRH" would be RH3-6LoRH?

- Section 6: "otherwise is is expressed in full" --> "otherwise it is
expressed in full"

- an specialized ---> a specialized

- a I flag --> an I flag?


Thanks,

Ines.
2015-11-17 22:07 GMT+02:00 <6lo-request@ietf.org>:

>
> ---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------
> From: Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> This starts a 6lo Working Group adoption call for the following draft:
>
>
>
> A Routing Header Dispatch for 6LoWPAN
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thubert-6lo-routing-dispatch/
>
>
>
> This draft solves a problem for ROLL, namely that of compression of RPL
> artifacts. It also appears to be extensible enough that it could be useful
> for other scenarios, especially after discussions at IETF 93 in Prague
> (context switch approach) and confirmation at IETF 94 in Yokohama.
>
>
>
>
> This document is intended as standards-track.
>
>
>
> Please send your opinion (“Yes” or “No”) to the mailing list on adopting
> this document as a 6lo WG document.
>
>
>
> This call will end at 00:00 UTC on December 1, 2015.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Chairs
>
>
>
>
>