Subject: Re: [6lowpan] #1: Make sure interface to 15.4 is clearly defined

From: Dominik Kaspar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:14:20 +0100

Dear list,

In the attempt of resolving issue #1, I came accross the following
references to PAN coordinators:

(1)

   In order to ease routing table updates and reduce error control
   messages, it would be helpful if nodes leaving the network
   inform their coordinator about their intention to disassociate.

   proposed change:

   In order to ease routing table updates, reduce their size, and
   minimize error control messages, nodes leaving the network may
   announce their disassociation to the closest edge router.

(2)

   [R17] In case there are one or more nodes allocated to coordinator
   roles, the coordinators MAY take the role of keeping track of node
   association and de-association within the LoWPAN.

   proposed change: delete R17

(3)

   [R18] If the routing protocol functionality includes enabling IP
   multicast, then it may want to employ coordinator roles, if any, as
   relay points of group-targeting messages instead of using link-layer
   multicast (broadcast).

   proposed change:

   [R17] If the routing protocol functionality includes enabling IP
   multicast, then it may want to employ relay points of group-targeting
   messages instead of using link-layer multicast (broadcast).

I've committed the proposed changes into the SVN repository.

Best regards,
Dominik

On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 4:03 PM, 6lowpan issue tracker
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> #1: Make sure interface to 15.4 is clearly defined
> ----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
>  Reporter:  [email-masked]          |        Owner:  [email-masked]
>     Type:  defect                |       Status:  assigned
>  Priority:  major                 |    Milestone:
> Component:  routing-requirements  |      Version:
>  Severity:  Active WG Document    |   Resolution:
>  Keywords:                        |
> ----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
>
> Comment(by [email-masked]):
>
>  - We should pay attention to whether we are assuming just 802.15.4 frame
>  format or the whole 802.15.4 protocol (including MAC features).
>
> --
> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lowpan/trac/ticket/1#comment:2>
> 6lowpan <http://tools.ietf.org/6lowpan/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lowpan mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
>

---

From: "Eunsook \"Eunah\" Kim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:30:06 +0900

Dominik,
I agree on your proposed changes, except deleting R17.
I would like to be careful to delete it. The requirement is added from comment.
Can we think more if it is really not necessary requirement or if we
can rephrase it?

-eunah

---

From: Dominik Kaspar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:44:26 +0100

Hi Eunah,

About deleting R17, which looked like this:

There is already a list of device types and roles in the draft, but it
does not include a coordinator type... so, in my opinion, either we
add a coordinator type (if that exists in reality), or we delete R17.

Greetings,
Dominik