Re: [Roll] [6lowpan] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt

Not sure how fantastic (or not) it is - it is not immediately clear to me how tied MLE should be to RPL - if it truly aims at being for _MESH_ link establishment, then it would appear to be a much larger scope, and should not be tied narrowly to a special-purpose protocol's type-space (& conventions etc., that do not apply universally).

I guess I'm expressing some sort of support for Don's position...

-- 
Thomas Heide Clausen
http://www.thomasclausen.org/

"Any simple problem can be made insoluble if enough meetings are held to
 discuss it."
   -- Mitchell's Law of Committees

On 15 Jun 2012, at 01:43, Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net> wrote:

> All sounds fantastic but we don't have time for all these changes so will
> opt to use MLE as written using UDP ( at least for our application....)
> 
> Don
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/14/12 1:13 PM, "Michael Richardson" <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> In draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt it says that
>>  MLE messages are sent using UDP.
>> 
>> I want to suggest that MLE messages should be sent at least as IPv6
>> ICMP messages.  
>> 
>> Further, I think that it could use the RPL type 155, and RPL would
>> allocate a new "code" codepoint.
>> 
>> There would be some preference to have the general structure of MLE
>> match that of RPL, but I think that this isn't particularly a strong
>> requirement.   Allocating a new ICMP type code for MLE alone might be
>> seen as excessive, but I can not speak for the folks in 6man.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>> IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Roll mailing list
>> Roll@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> 6lowpan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan