The 6tisch security design team will meet every two weeks starting on
November 29th at 14:00 UTC. The meeting is anchored to UTC, not EST, but
that will matter only in March.
The nov. 29th meeting will be devoted to:
a) recap of IETF97; work ensuing from the meeting.
b)
Dale R. Worley writes:
> I'm new here, but I notice that draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal mostly uses
> "802.15.4" (39 instances) rather than "802.15.4e" (4 instances), even
> though it applies only to TiSCH networks. Is this intended? What is
> the best style?
The 802.15.4e is and addition to the
I'm new here, but I notice that draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal mostly uses
"802.15.4" (39 instances) rather than "802.15.4e" (4 instances), even
though it applies only to TiSCH networks. Is this intended? What is
the best style?
Dale
___
6tisch mailing
Thank you for your comment, Pat!
I noticed your message wasn't on the ML; I paste it here.
On 2016/11/17 16:40, pat.kin...@kinneyconsultingllc.com wrote:
Yasuyuki brings up a very good point. A major effort in creating
802.15.4-2015 was to eliminate (at least try to) ambiguities. As
per the
FYI
-- Forwarded message -
From: Terry Manderson
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 at 09:00
Subject: IoT Directorate
To: i...@ietf.org
Dear IETF,
The interest in IoT technologies in the IETF, and more broadly in industry
and other SDOs, is
Hi Thomas,
>From the SF0 presentation slides, I can see the Timeout mechanism is still in
>discussion. It is not clear who will be responsible for setting Timeout, SF0
>or 6P. And this modification you mentioned is related. Right? Maybe I missed
>something.
ThanksQin
On Wednesday,
Hi all,
I'm wondering if the cell scheduled for the minimal configuration
should be ADVERTISING in terms of macLinkType rather than NORMAL.
The definition of LinkType can be found in Table 8-46 of IEEE
802.15.4-2015. This is a table about MLME-SET-LINK.request
parameters. It says:
Set to