Hi Michael, It is the process needed to make additions to ICMP. We have multiple implementers using the existing MLE draft so we also are trying to get closure if we can since we plan to being commercial certification shortly.
To us, MLE provides the features we need and there is ownership that does not rely on ourside work groups. If others find use in MLE (and we believe they will) then it is offered as a draft to the IETF community. If the protocol fundamentally changes and has dependencies on other groups, I would doubt it would be ready for implementation in our timeframe. Don On 6/15/12 7:30 AM, "Michael Richardson" <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote: > >>>>>> "Don" == Don Sturek <d.stu...@att.net> writes: > Don> We believe UDP makes the most sense as a transport for MLE. >ICMP will > Don> take entirely too long and will end up being a maintenance issue >if there > Don> are additional information exchanges needed using MLE. > >I can't see a difference myself in "length of time", unless you mean >time to change hardware/firmware/software. > >ICMP is even 4 bytes shorter than UDP. > >-- >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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
