Subject: [6lowpan] #105: IESG comment #14 (by Tim Polk) - Inconsistency in Fig. 1 and Section 3.2

From: "6lowpan issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:49:14 -0000

#105: IESG comment #14 (by Tim Polk) - Inconsistency in Fig. 1 and Section 3.2
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 Reporter:  carlesgo@…              |       Owner:     
     Type:  defect                  |      Status:  new
 Priority:  minor                   |   Milestone:     
Component:  routing-requirements    |     Version:     
 Severity:  -                       |    Keywords:     
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 The text in Figure 1 and section 3.2 is inconsistent.  (Figure 1 "shows
 the place of 6LoWPAN routing in the entire network stack.")

 From 3.2:
    In the simplest case for a Mesh Under where layer two forwarding can be
 performed without piggy-backing routing protocol information, the mesh-
 header defined in RFC 4944 [RFC4944] is sufficient, see Figure 5.

 This implies that the 6LoWPAN routing could occur in the IEEE 802.15.4 MAC
 layer.  I realize that ascii art has its limitations, but if that is
 correct a note in the accompanying text in section 3
 would be helpful.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/105>
6lowpan <http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/>

---

From: "6lowpan issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:53:40 -0000

#105: IESG comment #14 (by Tim Polk) - Inconsistency in Fig. 1 and Section 3.2
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
 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 changed Fig. 1 by placing the routing functionality in both MAC and
 6lowpan adaptation layers.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/105#comment:1>
6lowpan <http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/>