[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipng
Subject:    Re: GHC now crunches DTLS (Re: [Roll] [6lowpan]  draft-bormann-ghc)
From:       Mark Smith <markzzzsmith () yahoo ! com ! au>
Date:       2013-03-29 22:27:05
Message-ID: 1364596025.17268.YahooMailNeo () web142504 ! mail ! bf1 ! yahoo ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Carsten,


----- Original Message -----
> From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
> To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au>
> Cc: "6lowpan@ietf.org" <6lowpan@ietf.org>; "roll@ietf.org" <roll@ietf.org=
>; "ipv6@ietf.org List" <ipv6@ietf.org>; "core (core@ietf.org)" <core@ietf.=
org>
> Sent: Saturday, 30 March 2013 8:25 AM
> Subject: Re: GHC now crunches DTLS (Re: [Roll] [6lowpan]  draft-bormann-g=
hc)
> =

> On Mar 29, 2013, at 22:11, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> =

>>  RFC5175, "IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option"
> =

> EFO was inspiration for 6CIO, but is different from 6CIO in that it is ab=
out =

> flags promulgated by a router (and therefore can only be used in an RA).
> 6CIO is about the capabilities of the node sending that option.
> That's why they are not the same thing.
> =

> 6CIO is indeed meant to be general enough to carry other node capabilitie=
s that =

> are relevant to a node-node situation.=A0 ROHC-over-802 could have used i=
t.=A0 =

> That's why I'm proposing creating an IANA registry. to make the other 47 =

> bits available for other uses.
> =

> I'm completely neutral to whether GHC's compression scheme and 6CIO =

> should be done in a combined draft or separate drafts.=A0 In the latter c=
ase, =

> stealing more text from 5175 is an obvious thing to do.
> =

> Is there anything that could/should be generalized about 6CIO?
> (Without making it more complex, please.)
>=A0

The name is pretty much it - "IPv6 Neighbor Capability Flags Option" or sim=
ilar would be better and more general. I mentioned RFC5175 because the proc=
essing rules in that probably would be the same for this option and therefo=
re could be stolen. I think they would need to be specified somewhere that =
isn't 6LowPAN specific, which is why I suggested a different ID.

Best regards,
Mark.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]