Hi Thomas (and Michael), I don't agree that MLE targets only RPL. The draft was written carefully to avoid having a narrow focus around RPL. That said, the deployment we are using this draft for uses 6LoWPAN, 6LoWPAN ND, ROLL RPL (non-storing) and I think many others will find the information exchanged between neighbors using MLE as useful.
Don On 6/15/12 6:15 AM, "Thomas Heide Clausen" <i...@thomasclausen.org> wrote: > >On Jun 15, 2012, at 15:12 , Michael Richardson wrote: > >> >>>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Heide Clausen <i...@thomasclausen.org> writes: >> Thomas> Not sure how fantastic (or not) it is - it is not >> Thomas> immediately clear to me how tied MLE should be to RPL - if >> Thomas> it truly aims at being for _MESH_ link establishment, then >> Thomas> it would appear to be a much larger scope, and should not be >> Thomas> tied narrowly to a special-purpose protocol's type-space (& >> Thomas> conventions etc., that do not apply universally). >> >> Thomas, you will note that: >> 1) I suggested it go under IPv6 ICMP first, and if there was such push >> back about allocating a new type, that RPL could allocate a >>type/code. >> 2) ZigBee alliance (the proposal), *IS* using RPL. >> > >In that case, the draft must be very narrowly scoped and written such >that it's clear that it's applicable _only_ to that context >(special-purpose deployments of a special-purpose protocol), and >specifically to not pretend to do general mesh link establishment. > >> I see running it over UDP very architecturally strange. > >I don't. > >Thomas > >> -- >> Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works >> IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
