Subject: Re: [Lwip] Protocol Inter-operable Guidelines Comments on draft-chen-lwip-implementataion-00

From: Zhen Cao <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 22:39:09 +0800

Hi

In section. 5, it first states that "Lightweight TCP/IP
implementations, in resource-constrained devices, shall be fully
compliant with the standard TCP/IP and other simplified and limited
TCP/IP implementations", but then it says that some features do not
have to be implemented such as options and fragmentation.

My take of this problem is that we need a protocol implementation
profiles for interoperability, which tells us what functions are
required and what else are optional.

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 7:21 PM, ma yc <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Dear authors
>
> Thanks for the interesting draft. I think it a good point to eliminate
> some part of the
> TCP function in the TCP implementation. However i have some questions on your
> implementation detail.
>
> Section 5, you mentioned ARP, does it imply IPv4 is used in your stack?
>
> Also in section 5, it is said "ICMP can merely implement echo request
> and echo reply."
> However for IPv6 address autoconfiguration, etc., NDP is necessary. Is
> NDP implemented
> in your stack?
>
> Your clarification is appreciated.
>
> Thank you.
> Regards
>
> 2010/10/29 Hui Deng <[email-masked]>:
>> Dear authors,
>>
>> thanks for writing this document, I have 2 clarifications.
>> Section 1: What's the relationship between callback function and physical
>> memory?
>>
>> Section 3: are you saying all socket options are not needed?
>>
>> maybe this draft has close relationship with stack analysis draft,
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> -Hui
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lwip mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Lwip mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
>

-- 
Best regards,
Zhen