Subject: [6lowpan] #108: IESG comment #17 (by Adrian Farrel) - Clarification about the need of Fig. 4

From: "6lowpan issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:15:32 -0000

#108: IESG comment #17 (by Adrian Farrel) - Clarification about the need of Fig.
4
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 Reporter:  carlesgo@…              |       Owner:     
     Type:  defect                  |      Status:  new
 Priority:  minor                   |   Milestone:     
Component:  routing-requirements    |     Version:     
 Severity:  -                       |    Keywords:     
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 It is not appropriate for an Informational requirements document to
 take a position on which solutions my be adequate or to give PDU
 specifications.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/108>
6lowpan <http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/>

---

From: "6lowpan issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:20:14 -0000

#108: IESG comment #17 (by Adrian Farrel) - Clarification about the need of Fig.
4
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 Reporter:  carlesgo@…              |        Owner:        
     Type:  defect                  |       Status:  closed
 Priority:  minor                   |    Milestone:        
Component:  routing-requirements    |      Version:        
 Severity:  -                       |   Resolution:  fixed 
 Keywords:                          |  
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Changes (by carlesgo@…):

  * status:  new => closed
  * resolution:  => fixed

Comment:

 We believe that, in our opinion, no revision with regard to Fig. 4 should
 be made due to the following reasons.

 The header formats shown in Section 3.2 are not routing protocol PDU
 headers. These formats are the ones defined by 6LoWPAN technology in RFC
 4944 and draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-07, i.e. which 6LoWPAN adaptation layer
 headers are used for Route Over and Mesh Under.

 The 6lowpan routing requirements document is intended as an informational
 document which, in addition to the explicit requirements, aims at
 presenting useful information for the development of routing solutions.
 (We assume that making explicit which headers are used in Mesh Under or
 Route Over is useful information.)

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/108#comment:1>
6lowpan <http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/>