Subject: [Anima] RPL parameters for ACP

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2016 11:22:22 +1300

Hi,

While wearing my Gen-ART reviewer's hat this morning, I found myself reading
the details of a particular use case for RPL*.

So, it seems to me that the ACP draft currently has a gap. It isn't enough
for interoperability to just say "use RPL". A few choices and parameters need
to be specified. That looks like a hole in the ACP spec at the moment.

Regards
   Brian

* https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-17#section-5

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 15:06:52 -0500

> the details of a particular use case for RPL*.

You read the AMI document, I'm guessing, which has been a long time in the
making, and was based upon a template, specifically so that industry people
would be more specific than "use RPL"
(Well, no. AMI is in AUTH48, so it must have been another document)

    > to be specified. That looks like a hole in the ACP spec at the moment.

Yes, I mentioned that in my review of ACP last week, and I promised text to
add to it for this.
  https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/anima/current/msg02322.html

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-