Hello Michael :
I’m quite happy with most of your proposal.
Yet not sure the MAY on the return path is a good idea. Either make it a SHOULD
or a no no. Otherwise we do not know what to expect in a given network with
mixed implementations.
I think that it is actually an important traffic now th
Hello Pascal,
I have one minor comment on Figure 1 of the draft;
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture-12#section-3.1
My suggestion is to put "6LoWPAN HC / 6LoRH" directly on "IEEE Std
802.15.4 TSCH" and to add one box labeled with "Scheduling Functions".
It would look
Michael Richardson wrote:
> To be specific, I think that the JP should set the DSCP bits in the packet
> as per rfc2597 section 6, we want AF43 (0b100110).
https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security/pull-requests/4/join-traffic-marking/diff
The specific text is belo
peter van der Stok wrote:
> Meeting 25 December (Xmas 1) is a bit of an exaggeration.
I did delete that from the recurrance in the ics invite. :-)
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__
Hi Michael,
Meeting 25 December (Xmas 1) is a bit of an exaggeration.
Peter
___
6tisch mailing list
6tisch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
