Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\) <pthubert=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> I’m not a 6lo chair, but I do not see a consensus to adopt as is.
Thinking about what consensus is (RFC7282) and what adoption means, RFC7221,
I think that the question you need to answer is:
Do I/You have technical objections to this?
Since you don't have to use/deploy this specification, does it cause harm to
the IETF, or IoT protocols? (Aside from the $50K of time that it costs to
publish)
> The main value I see is the dense source routing scheme.
> My proposal since we are 6lo: we make is a 6lo source routing mesh
> under schema. For that we allocate is a page (RFC 8025) and a few bits
> for length (in bytes after the reminder bits in the length byte).
This is an interesting proposal.
It would seem to bring more value to more places at the same time.
> Note that I’d like to specify a BIER encoding at the same time, and
> would be happy to contribute that part.
I think it would exceed our allocation of Pascal Thubert cycles :-)
So it would be great if we had some gradual student or some super brliiant
intern to work on this.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
