Subject: Re: [6lowpan] comments on draft 5

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 12:59:14 -0800 (PST)

Yeah, IPv6 fragment handling, for example, does deal with error conditions, and even
with conditions which may seem out of the ordinary but which shouldn't be considered
errors.

-gabriel

----- Original Message ----
From: Philip Levis <[email-masked]>
To: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Cc: 6lowpan <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 9:00:49 AM
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] comments on draft 5

On Oct 26, 2006, at 11:30 PM, Geoff Mulligan wrote:

>
> For the same reason and and per the discussion with Phil, I think that
> the next paragraph (starting with "If a link fragment") should also be
> removed.

I'd differ on this one; it's good to describe what to do in error  
conditions without constraining the implementation unduly. Otherwise  
adversaries can profile your device based on its responses. That  
being said, it's really not a big deal, and so if nobody else feels  
strongly in this direction I have no objections to removing the  
paragraph.

Phil

_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan