Dear Georgios, Thanks for your response!
Your suggestion has been well noted, and we will definitely take it into due consideration for -03. Cheers, Carles (as one of the authors) On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 at 18:53, Georgios PAPADOPOULOS <gpapadopoulos.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Carles, > > Many thanks for your detailed response. > I believe we are in line with the vast majority of the points below. > > Regarding the Subsection 3.1 point: > > - Subsection 3.1: > [GP] If the idea is to introduce the third stack in Figure 2 (the one in the > right), then one could say if you want to cover all options, then another one > would be using SCHC compressing only CoAP, while 6LoWPAN for the UDP and > IPv6, i.e., CoAP/SCHC HC/UDP/IPv6/6LoWPAN HC/6LoWPAN Frag/802.15.4 > > > [CG] Well, the idea was not to actually cover all options. The > (so-called) "transition" option was added because there was an > explicit request for it. Is it the case for the option you suggest as > well? > > > My opinion is yes. > Since it is the only option/case that is missing out. > By integrating this, i.e., SCHC compresses CoAP layer, while 6LoWPAN UDP and > IPv6, all possible scenarios will be covered. > Furthermore, the original 6LoWPAN “layer” separation will be guaranteed. > > — — > Thanks, > Georgios > > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Libre de virus.www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
