Dear all,
I also support adoption of this draft.
As it has been expressed, this draft is needed for running IPv6 over PLC,
which is a widely used technology in relevant application domains.
About the document itself, it already has a good structure and good
content, therefore, in my opinion, it
Dear 6lo WG,
The call for adoption for draft-hou-6lo-plc-05 has ended. Thanks for all
responses received.
We have counted a total of 18 responses (including those from the draft
authors). Our assessment is that there is clear support from the WG for
adopting the draft.
Authors: please resubmit y
Dear 6Lo WG,
The WGLC on draft-ietf-6lo-backbone-router-10 ended on January 25. As part
of this WGLC, there was a discussion.
Authors: please submit a revised version of your draft addressing the
issues raised during the discussion.
Thanks,
Carles and Shwetha
> draft-ietf-6lo-backbone-router
Hi Bill,
First of all, thank you very much for your valuable comments, and sorry
for the delay.
Please find below inline responses to your comments:
> Hi all,
>
> I read the draft and I think this is an important work particularly to
> extend RFC 7668 from its existing star topology. I have the
Hello Rahul,
First of all, sorry for the delay, and thanks a lot for your valuable
comments!
Please find below inline responses to your points:
> Hello Authors-of-BLEMesh,
>
> Thank you for this work. This work establishes a different way of handling
> the BLE-mesh scenario and contrasts the app
Hi Rahul,
Once again, thank you very much for your valuable comments!
Please find below my inline responses:
> Hi Carles,
>
> Thank you for your response.
>
> In case of BLE, there are several randomized MAC addresses used. Some of
> them may be short-lived (such as per-connection non-resolvable
Dear Pascal,
Thank you very much for your support and for your comments.
We'll definitely take into account your comments when preparing -05.
Cheers,
Carles
> Dear all
>
> Sorry for being late. I support the publication of this document at this
> time.
> Minor comments;
>
> Section 3.2.2:
Dear 6lo WG,
We have updated the draft based on the WGLC comments received.
We believe we have addressed the points made by Bilhanan, Rahul and Pascal.
Thanks to everyone for the support and feedback received.
Cheers,
Carles (on behalf of all authors)
Original
Dear 6lo WG,
Thanks to all participants who requested a presentation slot in the 6lo WG
session at IETF 104.
A preliminary version of the agenda for 6lo at IETF 104 has just been
published:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/agenda-104-6lo-00
Please let us know if any update is n
Dear all,
We need a couple of minute takers and a jabber scribe for the 6lo WG
session in Prague. Please let us know if you would like to volunteer!
We would also like to ask the presenters to send us the slides in PDF
format before the 22nd of March.
Finally, please find below a slightly update
Dear 6lo WG,
A first version of the minutes from the 6lo WG meeting at IETF 104 has
just been posted:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/minutes-104-6lo-00.txt
We would like to thank our minute takers, Dominique Barthel and Antoine
Bernard, for kindly providing us with very good m
Dear 6lo WG,
Authors of draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-01 expressed in IETF 104 that
they believe that the document is ready for WGLC. No comments or
objections were made in this regard.
Therefore, this email starts a WGLC for draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-01:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft
Dear 6lo WG,
The WGLC for draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-01 is now closed.
During the WGLC, comments and reviews have been provided by Yasuyuki Tanaka,
Georgios Papadopoulos and Dominique Barthel. We would like to thank all
the reviewers for checking the document and kindly making suggestions fo
Hi Pascal,
Please find below my review of draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery-03.
In my humble opinion, this is a very readable document. In addition, the
document provides the motivations for some decisions made, which I
appreciated while reading the document.
Below you can find my comments and/or
Dear 6Lo WG,
The draft entitled "6LoWPAN Selective Fragment Recovery" has been recently
reviewed by WG participants. Several comments have been made and, as a
result, the draft has been updated twice. The draft editor has made a
request to the chairs to initiate a WG Last Call (WGLC).
This messag
Dear 6Lo WG,
The WGLC for draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery-04 is now closed.
During the actual WGLC interval, no feedback on the document has been
received. However, right before the WGLC, two detailed reviews have been
made, on revisions -02 and -03, which have led to the updated document
versio
est,
>
> Pascal
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: 6lo <6lo-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Carles Gomez Montenegro
>> Sent: mercredi 15 mai 2019 09:35
>> To: 6lo@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [6lo] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-01
>>
>&g
Hello Charlie,
Thanks for your document update.
> I would like to request some time during the upcoming [roll] WG meeting
> to explain the nature of the revisions and to invite feedback and more
> comments.
Just for clarity: did you perhaps mean the 6Lo WG instead of the ROLL WG ?
Cheers,
Ca
Dear 6Lo WG,
The initial version of the agenda for the 6Lo session at IETF 105
(Montreal) has just been posted:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/agenda-105-6lo-00
Please let us know if you have any comments.
Looking forward to the meeting!
Cheers,
Shwetha and Carles
Dear all,
We need a couple of minute takers and a jabber scribe for the 6Lo WG
session in Montreal (IETF 105). Please let us know if you would like to
volunteer! This will be very much appreciated.
We would also like to ask the presenters to send us or upload (*) your
slides in PDF format by Frid
(Note: CC'ing the 6Lo WG list.)
Dear authors,
In preparation for the shepherd writeup of the minimal fragment forwarding
draft [1], I need to ask you the following:
Are you aware of any IPR that applies to the draft?
Note that a response is needed from each one of the authors.
Thanks,
Carles
Dear authors,
First of all, thanks for your work.
As the shepherd for draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-02, I have reviewed
the document, and have the following comments:
- "LLN" is used in the title and in the abstract, but the actual body of
the document uses the term "6LoWPAN" (or "6Lo"), which
Hello Pascal, Carsten,
Yes, I am OK with your proposed updates, including that the title becomes
"6LoWPAN Fragment Forwarding".
Thanks for addressing my comments!
Cheers,
Carles
> Hello Carles
>
> Manu thanks for you review!
>
> Please see below
>
>>
>> - "LLN" is used in the title and in th
Dear all,
@Presenters: if you haven't done so yet, please send your slides in PDF
format to the chairs. Alternatively, feel free to upload your slides
(please see below (*)).
On the other hand, we need a jabber scribe, and a second minute taker.
Feel free to volunteer! Your help is very much appr
Dear 6Lo WG,
Please find below a link to the initial version of the minutes from the
6Lo WG session at IETF 105 (Montreal):
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/105/materials/minutes-105-6lo-00
Should you have any comments on the minutes, please do not hesitate to let
us know.
Finally, we would
Dear Rahul,
First of all, apologies for the late response.
Thank you very much for your review.
We have just submitted -06, which is intended to address your comments:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-06
Should you have any further concerns, please do not hesitate to let
Dear Alexander,
Thanks for your new Internet Draft submission!
As a chair, I would like to clarify one procedural detail. When working
group (WG) chairs want to verify whether there exists WG consensus for
adopting a document as a WG document, the chairs issue a (somewhat) formal
"Call for adopti
that will require fragmentation. Also, it provides a more
efficient use of the bus. Interesting!
Cheers,
Carles
> Dear Carles,
>
> On 17.10.19 18:16, Carles Gomez Montenegro wrote:
>
> > Thanks for your new Internet Draft submission!
> Thanks for the quick feedback
Hello Pascal,
While preparing my shepherd write-up for the 6lo fragment recovery draft,
I noticed one minor detail that I would like to bring to your attention.
In -05, draft-ietf-lwig-6lowpan-virtual-reassembly was added as a
reference. I think it is a bit odd that this document is mentioned f
Dear Alexander,
> Dear Carles,
>
>
> On 20.10.19 15:37, Carles Gomez Montenegro wrote:
>> Dear Alexander,
>>
>> Thanks for your responses.
>>
>> To some extent, I see similarities between the environment you are
>> considering (CAN) and MS/TP
about it is to indicate that
> it is non-compatible with this draft.
> For that reason it was actually strange to make it a normative reference,
> many thanks for spotting it..
>
> All the best;
>
> Pascal
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Carles Gomez Montenegro
Dear 6Lo WG,
As you may have noticed, we have been assigned a 90-minute slot at IETF
106 (13:30-15:00 Afternoon Session I, WEDNESDAY, November 20, 2019).
Please send your request to present updates on existing drafts or new
proposals to the chairs by Monday 4th November 2019.
Please include
Dear 6Lo WG,
Please find below a link to the initial version of the agenda for the 6Lo
WG session at IETF 106 (Singapore):
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/agenda-106-6lo-01
Should you have any comments on the agenda, please do not hesitate to let
us know.
Thanks,
Shwetha and
Dear all,
The initial version of the minutes from the 6Lo session at IETF 106 has
been posted:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/minutes-106-6lo-00.txt
Please do not hesitate to let us know about any update suggestions you may
have.
Thanks!
Shwetha and Carles
nsmissions originated and performed by a
> 6LN,
> and
> non-link-local packets intended for a 6LN that are originated or forwarded
> by a
> neighbor of that 6LN."
> What does "performed by a 6LN" imply here? Suggest just keeping originated
> by
> a 6LN, unless I
Dear Rahul,
I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
Thanks,
Carles
> Hello Authors of 6lo-blemesh,
>
> Can each of the author/co-author confirm if any and all appropriate
> IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of
> BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been
Dear 6Lo WG,
As you may have noticed, we have been assigned a 2-hour slot at IETF
107 (10:00-12:00 Morning Session I, FRIDAY, March 27th, 2020).
Please send your request to present updates on existing drafts or new
proposals to the chairs by Tuesday 10th March 2020.
Please include:
---
Dear 6Lo WG,
The ROLL WG chairs have requested reviews (from the 6Lo WG) of a ROLL WG
document [1] that updates RFC 8505, one of the products of the 6Lo WG.
Is there anyone who would like to volunteer to review the document, in
particular, with a 6Lo perspective?
Thank you in advance!
Cheers,
Dear 6Lo WG,
This is a gentle reminder of our earlier call for agenda items (please
find more details below).
Looking forward to receiving your requests!
Cheers,
Shwetha and Carles
> Dear 6Lo WG,
>
> As you may have noticed, we have been assigned a 2-hour slot at IETF
> 107 (10:00-12:00 Mor
Dear all,
The proposed update is fine with us (Shwetha and Carles), considering the
53 ARO status values that would still be available. There appear to be no
backwards issues either.
Would anyone in the 6Lo WG (or anyone receiving this email) have any
concerns with the proposal below by Pascal an
Dear all,
As you know, the exceptional situation due to COVID-19 led to cancelling
the in-person IETF 107 meeting.
As a replacement for the 6Lo WG session that was originally scheduled for
IETF 107, we plan to hold a virtual interim 6Lo WG meeting. As recommended
by the IESG, we plan to hold the
Dear 6Lo WG,
We announce the cancellation of the virtual interim 6Lo WG meeting that
was intended as a replacement for the originally scheduled in-person IETF
107 6Lo WG meeting.
The reason for the cancellation is that, this time, we (the chairs)
received a low number of presentation requests
> Looking forward towards many things being built on top of this!
+1 !
And looking forward to discussing potential opportunities of using
SCHC in 6Lo environments!
Carles
> GrüÃe, Carsten
___
6lo mailing list
6lo@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.or
Dear WG,
We are initiating WG Last Call on the following document:
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over PLC Networks"
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-plc-02
The Last Call will end on Monday, 4th of May.
Please provide your feedback on this document on the mailing list. Short
co
Hello,
Thanks a lot to Michael and Yizhou for providing comments, and thanks also
to the authors for updating the draft!
Michael, Yizhou: could you please let us know whether the last draft
update addresses your comments satisfactorily?
Gentle reminder for the WG: the WGLC for this document ends
Dear WG,
Please consider filling out the survey pointed to below. It will help
planning future (perhaps, online) IETF meetings.
Thanks,
Shwetha and Carles
Original Message
Subject: Fwd: Reminder: Survey on planning for possible online I
Dear Alexander,
Thanks for your work on the 6LoCAN draft.
Please find below a review of draft-wachter-6lo-can-01:
- An explicit sentence could be added to the Introduction to explicitly
state what this document is about (e.g. similar to the last sentence of
the abstract).
- Sec. 1, 2nd para
Dear all,
The email below contains information that may be of interest, not only to
this working group!
(As you may recall, we requested a 6Lo session at IETF 108.)
Cheers,
Shwetha and Carles
-
From: IETF Executive Director
Date: 19 june 2020 05:52:59 UTC+2
Dear IPv6 over NFC authors,
As the current shepherd for draft-ietf-6lo-nfc, and after discussion with
our AD, I have reviewed the document, keeping in mind the feedback
received from the IESG regarding the document.
Please find a list of detailed comments and update suggestions at the end
of this
Dear 6Lo WG,
As you may have noticed, we have a 50-min slot at IETF 108
(13:00-13:50 UTC, Wednesday Session II, July 29, 2020).
Please send your request to present updates on existing drafts or new
proposals to the chairs by Tuesday 14th July 2020.
Please include:
--
Dear all,
The first version of the agenda for the 6lo session at IETF 108 is now
online:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/108/materials/agenda-108-6lo-00.txt
Please let us know whether any corrections need to be made.
Cheers,
Shwetha and Carles
_
Dear authors of draft-ietf-6lo-plc,
As part of the preparation of the shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-6lo-plc,
I need to ask the following question:
Are you aware of any IPR that applies to this draft?
(Recall that all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance
with the provis
Dear all,
Please find below a link to the initial version of the minutes from the
6Lo session at IETF 108:
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/minutes/minutes-108-6lo-00.txt
We would like to thank Dominique Barthel for his great help as a minute
taker.
Should you identify any corrections that m
Dear draft-ietf-6lo-plc authors,
Thanks for your work on this document. I think that it is very readable.
Please find my shepherd review of the document at the end of this message.
My comments are shown as non-indented text.
Please update the draft taking into account this review. (Of course, fe
From: IETF Executive Director
mailto:exec-direc...@ietf.org>>
Thank you very much to the ~230 people who have filled in the IETF 108
meeting survey as this data is crucial to helping us plan future meetings.
We could still use another 70 or so responses and so this is a final
reminder to please h
publication of the document.
Thanks,
Carles
> Dear Carles and all,
>
> I am not aware of any IPR on this draft.
>
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
>
>
>
> On 8/2/2020 11:09 PM, Carles Gomez Montenegro wrote:
>> Dear authors of draft-ietf-6lo-plc,
>>
>> As
Dear authors of draft-ietf-6lo-nfc,
Thanks for updating the draft and producing revision -16.
In my opinion, the document has improved. I checked the document again,
and I have another round of comments. Perhaps just one more iteration to
address this round of comments might suffice to proceed to
Hello Remy,
First of all, sorry for the late response.
Thanks for taking my comments into consideration.
Please find below my inline responses (labeled [Carles]):
> Hello Carles,
>
> Thank you very much for your detailed review.
[Carles] You are welcome!
> We accept most of your suggestions.
Hi Younghwan,
Sorry for the late reply.
Thanks for addressing my comments!
Best regards,
Carles
> Hi all,
>
> I have submitted the draft-17 (like the followings), which had reflected
> all the comments about draft-16 from Carles.
> Thanks a lot.
>
> Best regards,
> Younghwan
> -
Hi Laurent,
Thanks a lot for your comments!
(And sorry for the late response.)
Please find below my inline responses:
> Hi Carles,
>
> Thank you for the draft, it shows that 6lo and SCHC can work together.
> I've
> few comments on the draft:
>
> - NALP
>
> I don't think we should impose the siz
Dear all,
We just submitted revision -08 of the "IPv6 Mesh over BLUETOOTH(R) Low
Energy using IPSP" draft.
The main changes in this revision are intended to address Erik Kline's
comments as part of his AD review.
Thank you, Erik, for your review!
Cheers,
Carles (on behalf of all the co-authors
Dear 6Lo WG,
Authors of draft-ayers-low-power-interop have approached the independent
submission editor for possible publication of the document.
Before proceeding further, we would need to know which is the opinion of
the WG regarding this document. The document was presented at IETF 102 and
IET
ts. Please
> find my new response to your 3rd comment below.
>
> Thank you very much for reviewing.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Remy
> -ÓʼþÔ¼þ-
> ·¢¼þÈË: Carles Gomez Montenegro [mailto:carle...@entel.upc.edu]
> ·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2020Äê9ÔÂ2ÈÕ 17:54
> ÊÕ¼þÈË: Liubing (Rem
Dear WG,
Just a gentle reminder on the poll mentioned below.
Thanks,
Carles
> Dear 6Lo WG,
>
> Authors of draft-ayers-low-power-interop have approached the independent
> submission editor for possible publication of the document.
>
> Before proceeding further, we would need to know which is th
Dear 6Lo WG,
We hereby announce the cancellation of the 6Lo WG session that had
initially been scheduled for IETF 109.
The reason for the cancellation is that we (the chairs) received a low
number of presentation requests.
Based on the feedback that we received, we actually plan to hold an IETF
NomCom is considering nominees for AD positions, IETF Chair, IAB, LLC
Board, and IETF Trust. We need more input from the community both on
specific nominees and on over-arching topics regarding what the community
wants from these specific groups and wants from its leadership in general.
We need *yo
Dear all,
We have updated draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh, with the aim to address the
comments from Dominique Barthel (IoTDIR), Acee Lindem (RTGDIR), Catherine
Meadows (SECDIR) and Pete Resnick (Gen-ART).
We would like to thank the above mentioned reviewers for their time and
for their valuable comments.
Hi Dominique,
Sorry for the late reply, and thanks a lot for your thorough review of the
draft!
We just submitted -09, which aims at addressing the last round of review
comments, including yours:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-09
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6l
Hi Acee,
Sorry for the late reply, and thanks a lot for your review of the draft!
We just submitted -09, which aims at addressing the last round of review
comments, including yours:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-09
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-09
Hi Catherine,
Sorry for the late reply.
Thank you very much for your review, which has been very valuable to us.
We understand that no action is needed from our side in the context of
your review.
Should you have any further comments, please do not hesitate to let us know.
Cheers,
Carles (on
Hi Pete,
Thanks a lot for your review of the draft!
We just submitted -09, which aims at addressing the last round of review
comments, including yours:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-09
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-09
Please find below our inline r
Dear 6Lo WG,
As you may have seen, a 6Lo WG session has been scheduled for IETF 110.
The coordinates of the session are:
- Day: Thursday, 11th March
- Time: 13:00-15:00 (UTC +01)
- Room: 2
Please send your request to present updates of existing drafts or new
drafts by Tuesday, 23rd February
Dear WG,
The initial version of the minutes from the 6lo session at IETF 110 are
now available:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/110/materials/minutes-110-6lo-00
Should you have any comments, correction suggestions, etc., please let us
know.
Thanks,
Shwetha and Carles
_
Hi Martin,
Thank you very much for your feedback, and apologies for the late response.
We just published an updated version of the draft (revision -10).
Regarding your Discuss point, after discussion among the authors and with
the WG, we aim to address the issue by stating now that:
As per t
Hi Benjamin,
Thank you very much for your feedback, and apologies for the late response.
We just published an updated version of the draft (revision -10).
Please find below our inline responses to your comments:
> Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-6lo-bl
Hi Robert,
Thank you very much for your feedback, and apologies for the late response.
We just published an updated version of the draft (revision -10).
Please find below our inline responses to your comments:
> Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-6lo-bleme
Dear 6Lo WG,
The NomCom 2021-2022 Call for Volunteers has been published:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/T_WVH96pH-5QVTRqd0yTT1TaPaU/
The IETF benefits from having a good, sizable pool of volunteers to be
NomCom members. Please, volunteer if you think you can serve on NomCom.
e, and thanks for your constructive review!
Best regards,
Carles
> Ben
>
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 12:39:37PM +0200, Carles Gomez Montenegro wrote:
>> Hi Benjamin,
>>
>> Thank you very much for your feedback, and apologies for the late
>> response.
>>
>&
Dear 6Lo WG,
As you may have seen, a 6Lo WG session has been scheduled for IETF 111.
The coordinates for the session are:
- Day: Wednesday, 28th of July 2021
- Time: 21:30-22:30 (UTC)
- Room: 4
If you want to present updates of existing drafts or new drafts at the 6Lo
session, please send yo
Dear 6Lo WG,
Please find below a link to the initial version of the agenda for the 6Lo
WG session at IETF 111:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-111-6lo/
Should you have comments or questions, please do not hesitate to let us know.
Cheers,
Shwetha and Carles
_
Hi Guangpeng,
Thanks for your interesting draft.
Please find a number of comments below:
- Section 1. NSA routing does not need to spread routing messages to
establish the node-local routing table; such diffusion action would
consume too much network resources, thus not being suitable for large
Dear WG,
Before the last cutoff date, we submitted the initial version of the draft
entitled "Transmission of SCHC-compressed packets over IEEE 802.15.4
networks".
Please find further details below.
We will present the draft in the 6lo session.
Comments are welcome!
Cheers,
Carles (as a WG pa
Dear WG,
Please find below the initial version of the minutes from the 6Lo session
at IETF 111:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/materials/minutes-111-6lo-00.txt
Should you have any corrections, please do not hesitate to let us know.
Many thanks to our excellent minute takers, Georgios Z
Dear 6Lo WG,
Please find below information regarding the NomCom 2021-2022 Call for
Nominations.
Cheers,
Shwetha and Carles
-Original Message-
From: ietf On Behalf Of NomCom Chair 2021
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2021 10:04
To: IETF Announcement List
Cc: i...@ietf.org
Subject: NomCom 202
Dear Pascal, all,
Thanks for the draft, and thanks (also to the reviewers) for the comments
and subsequent discussion.
We encourage the WG to read the document and provide comments on the
mailing list.
(Note: as stated below by Pascal, comments provided in the next few days
will have the chance
Dear 6Lo WG,
Considering the need and the urgency for the functionality defined in
draft-thubert-6lo-multicast-registration-02, along with the interest from
the Wi-SUN Alliance, this message starts a 10-day call for WG adoption for
draft-thubert-6lo-multicast-registration-02.
(Link below:
https:/
Dear 6Lo WG,
(CC'ing the ROLL WG.)
In continuation to our previous message:
The authors of draft-thubert-6lo-multicast-registration-02 have requested
early allocation of IANA code points for the following (sub)registries:
RPL Target Option flags, EARO flags, RPL Mode of Operation, and 6LoWPAN
Dear all,
This is a gentle reminder that the call for adoption below is currently
open (note: the call will end this Thursday, EOB).
Please state on the mailing list whether you are in favor of adopting the
document.
Thanks,
Shwetha and Carles
> Dear 6Lo WG,
>
> Considering the need and the u
Dear 6Lo WG,
As you may have seen, a 6Lo WG session has been scheduled for IETF 112.
The coordinates for the session are:
- Day: Monday, 8th of November 2021
- Time: 14:30-15:30 (UTC)
- Room: 2
If you want to present updates of existing drafts or new drafts at the 6Lo
session, please send yo
Dear 6Lo WG,
(CC'ing the LPWAN WG.)
Please find below several pointers to revision -01 of the draft entitled
"Transmission of SCHC-compressed packets over IEEE 802.15.4 networks".
The main updates in -01 are:
- SCHC Dispatch Type in Page 0
- RuleID size of 8 bits
- New content for IPv6 addres
Dear 6Lo WG,
Please find below a link to the initial version of the agenda for the 6Lo
WG session at IETF 112:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/112/materials/agenda-112-6lo-00
Should you have comments or questions, please do not hesitate to let us know.
Cheers,
Shwetha and Carles
___
Dear all,
Please find below a link to the initial version of the minutes from the
6Lo meeting at IETF 112:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/112/materials/minutes-112-6lo-00.txt
Should you want to suggest any corrections, please let us know.
We would like to thank Dominique once again for his
Hi Luigi, and rest of coauthors,
(CC'ing Pascal and Dominique, who made relevant comments in IETF 111.)
Thanks for the updated version of your draft.
We have a question related with your first point below, and also with the
scope of the document (and how it fits the scope of 6Lo):
- Do you envi
Hi Dominique,
(CC'ing both 6Lo and LPWAN.)
In the 6Lo session of IETF 112 you made some comments on
draft-gomez-6lo-schc-15dot4-01 (thanks!).
One of them was a question regarding the RuleID size, since in -01 we had
(still have) the following statement:
"The present specification defines a Ru
Dear all,
RFC 8376 (LPWAN Overview) introduces the terms "Dev" and "App". RFC 8724
(the base SCHC specification) reuses and expands a little bit the
definition of these terms.
"Dev" refers to a constrained device (e.g. sensor, actuator, etc.),
whereas "App" refers to a network-side, less constrai
Dear all,
Last Tuesday, in the LPWAN interim, we discussed the topic of "Dev" and
"App" roles for SCHC header compression in peer-to-peer 802.15.4 networks
(please find it below).
There are two main options:
- Option A: each device needs to know whether it will be Dev or App for each
Dear 6lo WG,
As you may have seen, a 6lo WG session has been scheduled for IETF 113.
The coordinates for the session are:
- Day: Wednesday, 23rd of March 2022
- Session: Morning Session 1
- Time in Meeting timezone: 10:00-1200 (Vienna)
- Time in UTC: 9:00 UTC - 11:00 UTC
- Room: Park Suite 8
If
Hi Laurent,
Thanks for your message!
Please find below some inline responses:
> Hi Carles,
>
> I think is it good to keep App and Dev since they are hardcoded in the
> Field ID.
Yes, I see the advantage of trying to reuse existing functionality as it
is to the extent possible.
> The goal will
Dear 6lo WG,
(CC'ing lpwan.)
Please find below the main pointers to an updated version of
draft-gomez-6lo-schc-15dot4.
The main changes in this last update are:
- RuleID size is now not fixed (a recommendation is given).
- Dev and App roles are now also used in peer-to-peer IEEE 802.15.4
netwo
Hi,
Just to provide a few more details:
As captured in the IETF 112 minutes, the IESG was concerned that the NFC
specification was not publicly available (e.g. to allow checking any
details that might relevant to the IPv6 over NFC draft).
The authors provided a recent version of the NFC spec to
1 - 100 of 226 matches
Mail list logo
