On May 1, 2015, at 5:36 PM 5/1/15, Carsten Bormann <cabo(_at_)tzi(_dot_)org>
wrote:
James Woodyatt wrote:
No standard way of announcing this operational parameter is described in
the mesh header renovation proposal.
Yes, and there never has been a standard way of announcing the use (and
the purported semantics) of the RFC 4944 mesh header either, so nothing
would change in that respect. As defined in RFC 4944, the mesh header
is an empty shell, to be filled in by a specific agreement that all
interoperating nodes in a mesh need to be aware of before they can start
using it.
Again, no change at all by the new proposal, except that the syntax now
would also be allowed to change with that special agreement.
If those who want to use the old syntax would actually tell what they
plan to use it for, there might maybe be a basis for some argument. I
still haven't seen anything but political maneuvering. Why is it so
hard to argue at a technical level?
G3-PLC is defined in ITU-T G.9903, published by SG-15. From my reading of that
document, G.9903 specifies the use of the MESH Dispatch Type as defined in RFC
4944, as well as the ESC Dispatch Type, as redefined in RFC 6282.
- Ralph
Grüße, Carsten
_______________________________________________
6lo mailing list
6lo(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo