Subject: [6lowpan] Interop event feedback

From: "Reddy, Joseph" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 01:38:31 -0500

Hi Geoff,

We had a ZigBee IP test event last week where we did interop testing of 6lowpan ND and header compression ( as well as RPL ). We had 9 platforms participate in the testing and it was a pretty succesful event. 

Based on the feedback from the implementers, a couple of clarifications are requested on the HC draft. 

1. In 4.2 of hc-07,  clarify the length field definition. Should it be the number of octets of the whole compressed IPv6 extestion header including the length field octet itself or  the number of octets of compressed IPv6 extension header following the length field

2. Clarify how iid is generated when 16-bit field is carried inline ( basically, similar to what is in section 3.2.2 but that only applies for the case all the address bits are elided ) 

-Regards, Joseph

---

From: "Don Sturek" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 06:24:29 -0700

To follow up, we would like to see ND and HC go to Last Call.  We believe
both documents are mature enough now.

Don

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Reddy, Joseph
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 11:39 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [6lowpan] Interop event feedback

Hi Geoff,

We had a ZigBee IP test event last week where we did interop testing of
6lowpan ND and header compression ( as well as RPL ). We had 9 platforms
participate in the testing and it was a pretty succesful event. 

Based on the feedback from the implementers, a couple of clarifications are
requested on the HC draft. 

1. In 4.2 of hc-07,  clarify the length field definition. Should it be the
number of octets of the whole compressed IPv6 extestion header including the
length field octet itself or  the number of octets of compressed IPv6
extension header following the length field

2. Clarify how iid is generated when 16-bit field is carried inline (
basically, similar to what is in section 3.2.2 but that only applies for the
case all the address bits are elided ) 

-Regards, Joseph
 
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:37:32 +0200

On Aug 19, 2010, at 15:24, Don Sturek wrote:

> we would like to see ND and HC go to Last Call

HC-08 just completed WG last call, with a couple of small comments that we need to resolve now.
I don't foresee much controversy there and hope we can submit it this month.

ND indeed is next. Can you comment on how far the interop testing went and what it might tell us about the level of interoperability we can expect from that spec?

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: "Don Sturek" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 06:40:42 -0700

Hi Carsten,

We had 9 vendors at the test event.  We had 7 implementations complete all
of the tests associated with single hop ND.  We had 5 implementations
complete all tests associated with multi hop ND and were able to create a 9
hop network through joining just using 6LowPAN ND.

Don

-----Original Message-----
From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 6:38 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: 'Reddy, Joseph'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Interop event feedback

> we would like to see ND and HC go to Last Call

HC-08 just completed WG last call, with a couple of small comments that we
need to resolve now.
I don't foresee much controversy there and hope we can submit it this month.

ND indeed is next. Can you comment on how far the interop testing went and
what it might tell us about the level of interoperability we can expect from
that spec?

Gruesse, Carsten