Hi Michael, Thanks for your comments.
Please find below my inline responses: On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 at 17:25, Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote: > > Carles Gomez Montenegro <carles.go...@upc.edu> wrote: > > 1. Generic vs IEEE 802.15.4-specific document > > ... > > > We (authors) followed the current IEEE 802.15.4-specific approach as > it > > seemed more straightforward, and focusing on IEEE 802.15.4 entailed > > interesting opportunities. Coincidentally, this approach is similar > to > > Are you writing to enable SCHC over *802.15.4* radios, or any network which > happens to use 6lo compression techniques? e.g. DECT, G.99, PLC, ?? > [Carles] Well, the original (and current) focus of this draft was using SCHC (header compression part only) over IEEE 802.15.4 networks. > Do you expect SCHC frames to co-exist with 6lo frames? > (It sounds like it uses 6lo code pages, etc) > > [Carles] Yes, we understand that such coexistence might be needed in some environments. To avoid coexistence issues, we plan to request one (now two) 6LoWPAN Dispatch Type bit pattern(s). > > - The document uses only the SCHC header compression component (i.e., > > 6LoWPAN/6lo functionality is used for fragmentation). > > > Thoughts? Would you have any particular preference on this matter? > > i think the answer should be driven by input from those who might want to > use > this on other media. What do they want, if anything. > > [Carles] I agree! Thanks, Carles (as WG participant) > > -- > Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > > >
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
