Pascal,
Thanks for this and your previous message. I would need to think
very carefully whether this proposal would really have been strictly
compatible with RFC 3697 - it actually depends on how the agreement
to use these semantics imposed on the flow label is made (what is
called 'flow state est
On Aug 9, 2010, at 3:17 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> Hi Michael:
>
> With http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-rpl-07#section-7.2 I
> tried to stay within the lines of RFC 3697 as you also defend in your
> mail.
>
> I think the question we have now is not whether that proposal
The latest version from Bob works for me, and I also agree this can be
done in AUTH48.
I also wanted to comment on the process. Sometimes we do hit issues in
AUTH48. Small changes, even technical, may be doable in AUTH48, but they
should always be confirmed with the working group, and sometime
Le 9 août 2010 à 12:17, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) a écrit :
> Hi Michael:
>
> With http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-rpl-07#section-7.2 I
> tried to stay within the lines of RFC 3697 as you also defend in your
> mail.
>
> I think the question we have now is not whether that proposal i
Hi Michael:
With http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-rpl-07#section-7.2 I
tried to stay within the lines of RFC 3697 as you also defend in your
mail.
I think the question we have now is not whether that proposal is lawful
but whether the new law being defined at 6MAN would prevent it in t
Hi Brian:
I think this went unanswered, sorry about that.
RPL voted not to use the flow label because we were afraid we could "shoot
ourselves in the foot" by using a method that could become invalid. Instead,
the group elected to go to the RPL option in a Hop by Hop header as was
presented t
