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

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

Pascal,

On 12/19/14 6:59 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> The rush Carsten,
> 
> is that the document that will be the base for the 6TiSCH interop
> test in Prague is now in last call, and that document refers to the
> NHC draft. The question is what should it refer to, and whatever it
> refers to should be stable and implementable by now.

So, do you view the code for the interop being "set in stone"?  As
Adrian pointed out, the interop could be a way to work out the tradeoffs
of these multiple approaches.  That is, running code leads to an IETF
specification rather than the other way around.

Regards,
Brian

> 
> Just the first (per your words) is just fine with me.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Pascal
> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: Roll
>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Carsten Bormann Sent:
>> vendredi 19 décembre 2014 09:17 To: Routing Over Low power and
>> Lossy networks Cc: [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 6lo- 
>> [e-mail] Subject: Re: [Roll] call for consensus for
>> the RPL RPI / RH3 compression
>> 
>> On 17 Dec 2014, at 09:29, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Decision in Hawaii was that the NHC draft could not be accepted
>>> as is, since we should compress also the RH3, and without a clear
>>> view of how that would happen, the details of the NHC compression
>>> could not be determined. So the NHC approach was abandoned
>> 
>> That is not at all what I recollect from Hawaii.
>> 
>> The current smorgasbord is:
>> 
>> — various ways to hijack the flow label (dead) — the 6553-NHC
>> proposal — ideas for a new mesh header
>> 
>> I’m not going to beat the dead horse of the flow label hijack.
>> 
>> The 6553-NHC proposal mainly needs a decision between the three
>> variants (flip a coin, if need be). If time is of the essence,
>> 6553-NHC is the natural thing to do. We can always do an RFC 6554
>> NHC compression separately.
>> 
>> The MH proposal is forward-looking and probably the right thing for
>> the evolution of 6lo, but probably also not compatible with a tight
>> time schedule.
>> 
>> Now, what is the rush? RFC 6553/6554 do exist.
>> 
>> So we get to choose between rushing 6553-NHC to completion or
>> using 6553/6554 for now and doing the MH work right (or. more
>> likely than just the first, both). I don’t have an opinion on
>> wether we need to rush 6553-NHC, but if we need to rush anything,
>> this one it is.
>> 
>> Grüße, Carsten
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ Roll mailing list 
>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll