Kerry Lynn <kerlyn=40ieee....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> My main reason is that the draft has no Security Considerations section,
> and I am not sure the
> scheme can be made secure. I believe the WG should always consider the
I don't think that the lack of a SC section is a reason not to adopt.
(They are *drafts* and do not need to be complete. This is not WGLC)
If you think that the scheme can never be secured, then that would be different.
> Second, the fact that routing is based on addressing makes me wonder
> whether this effort
> would encroach on Routing Area's charter.
I don't think that they want it.
> Third, one potential application that has been suggested is low-cost
> sensors in server racks,
> yet I have seen no suggested wired MAC for this application. RFC 8163
> covers this base.
I don't buy this solution either, btw.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
