Hi all, I also support the WG adoption of draft-li-6lo-native-short-address-03 for the same reason highlighted by Alex.
Regards, Marco Carugi - AIOTI (Alliance for IoT Innovation) WG Standardization expert Le jeu. 4 août 2022 à 11:54, Galis, Alex <a.ga...@ucl.ac.uk> a écrit : > 4th August 2022 > > Hi All > > I support the adoption call for draft-li-6lo-native-short-address-03 as it > would enable IP networks to utilize fewer resources from constrained nodes. > > > Best Regards > > Alex Galis > > On 4 Aug 2022, at 09:52, Luigi IANNONE < > luigi.iannone=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > ⚠ Caution: External sender > > Hi, > > I would like to join Li Guangpeng in thanking Pascal. His great feedback > made the document much better and the solution more robust. > As for the comments in the last mail, they look more subjective than > technically objective. > > As a co-authors I support adoption. > > Ciao > > L. > > > > *From:* 6lo <6lo-boun...@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Liguangpeng (Roc, > Network Technology Laboratory) > *Sent:* Wednesday, 3 August 2022 09:01 > *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> > *Cc:* Carles Gomez Montenegro <carle...@entel.upc.edu>; 6lo <6lo@ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: [6lo] Call for WG adoption of > draft-li-6lo-native-short-address-03 > > Hi Pascal and all, > > As we know, the discussion of whether routing in LLN networks should run > at Layer 2 or Layer 3 (network layer) has become a very sensitive issue for > a long time. With the advent of multiple low-power link layer > technologies, such as IEEE 802.15.4, Wi-Fi, and PLC, network layer routing > is clearly required. However, the separation of mesh-under and route-over > processes induces suboptimal routes and (L2 and L3) duplicated re-route > overhead. > > This draft’s topological addressing method can integrate address and route > information into a single place. It will help to run IP layer on various > link layer technologies and meanwhile avoid above duplicated re-route > issues. > > Thanks Pascal for continuous advices and comments. As author of this > draft, I want to state support of this adoption. > > Regards, > Guangpeng Li > > *From:* 6lo <6lo-boun...@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Pascal Thubert > (pthubert) > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 3, 2022 12:37 PM > *To:* Jing Wang <wangjin...@chinamobile.com> > *Cc:* Carles Gomez Montenegro <carle...@entel.upc.edu>; 6lo <6lo@ietf.org> > *Subject:* Re: [6lo] Call for WG adoption of > draft-li-6lo-native-short-address-03 > > Hello Carles > > I have reviewed the work carefully. > > I believe that we can achieve short packets with 6lo and SCHC so that > piece is not an essential progress. So 6lo as an INT areaWg does not need > it.The essential progress is meshing without routing. It’s probably hard > to justify it at the routing area though the authors could try. > > My feeling is that the idea is interesting but has a very narrow > applicability, which is in essence the opposite of IP. The progress applies > only to very specific L2 networks. This tells me that it is really an L2 > technology and should be used for MAC not IP. > > Bottom line is that I do not believe that the work belongs to the IETF. I > do not support adoption at 6lo. > > > Regards, > > Pascal > > > > Le 2 août 2022 à 18:01, Jing Wang <wangjin...@chinamobile.com> a écrit : > > > Hi WG, > > I support the adoption call. In my opinion, this can help enlarge > scope of IP network, considering it may consume less resource of > constrained nodes. > > BR, > Jing Wang > > > *From:* Carles Gomez Montenegro <carle...@entel.upc.edu> > *Date:* 2022-08-01 22:58 > *To:* 6lo <6lo@ietf.org> > *Subject:* [6lo] Call for WG adoption of > draft-li-6lo-native-short-address-03 > Dear 6lo WG, > > This message starts a call for WG adoption for > draft-li-6lo-native-short-address-03. > > (Link below: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-li-6lo-native-short-address-03 > ) > > Considering that some folks may be on vacation currently or in the next > few days, the call will end on the 22nd of August, EOB. > > Please state whether you are in favor of adopting this document. > > Also, any comments you may have, and/or expressions of interest to review > the document, will be very much appreciated. > > Thanks, > > Shwetha and Carles > > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > 6lo@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo > > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > 6lo@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo > > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > 6lo@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo > > > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > 6lo@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo >
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
