Subject: [6tisch] section 11.2 of minimal

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2016 15:20:19 -0400

Should section 11.2 reference ROLL's useofrpi document rather than
RFC6282 now?

11.2.  RPL Configuration

   In addition to the Objective Function (OF), nodes in a multihop
   network using RPL MUST indicate the preferred mode of operation using
   the MOP field in the DIO.  Nodes not being able to operate in the
   specified mode of operation MUST only join as leaf nodes.  RPL
   information and hop-by-hop extension headers MUST follow [RFC6553]
   and [RFC6554] specification.  In the case that the packets formed at
   the LLN need to cross through intermediate routers, these MUST
   follow the IP in IP encapsulation requirement specified by the [RFC6282]
   and

   [RFC2460].  Routing extension headers such as RPI [RFC6550] and SRH
   [RFC6554], and outer IP headers in case of encapsulation MUST be
   compressed according to [I-D.ietf-6lo-routing-dispatch] and
   [I-D.ietf-6lo-paging-dispatch].

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

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 13:28:58 +0000

Hello Michael:

This raises 2 questions:
The problem with a normative ref to ROLL's useofrpi is that it will delay the publication till useofrpi is ready to RFC. Do we need that? 
We could benefit from a non-normative reference to useofrpi, but that would not replace a normative reference to RFC6282, would it?

Cheers,

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 6tisch [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
> Sent: samedi 6 août 2016 21:20
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [6tisch] section 11.2 of minimal
> 
> 
> Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works  -=
> IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
>