draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-07.txt   rfc8066.txt 
6lo S. Chakrabarti Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Chakrabarti
Internet-Draft Request for Comments: 8066
Updates: 4944, 6282 (if approved) G. Montenegro Updates: 4944, 6282 G. Montenegro
Intended status: Standards Track Microsoft Category: Standards Track Microsoft
Expires: June 11, 2017 R. Droms ISSN: 2070-1721 R. Droms
J. Woodyatt J. Woodyatt
Google Google
December 8, 2016 February 2017
6lowpan ESC Dispatch Code Points and Guidelines IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN)
draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-07 ESC Dispatch Code Points and Guidelines
Abstract Abstract
RFC4944 defines the ESC dispatch type to allow for additional RFC 4944 defines the ESC dispatch type to allow additional dispatch
dispatch octets in the 6lowpan header. The value of the ESC dispatch octets in the 6LoWPAN header. The value of the ESC dispatch type was
type was updated by RFC6282, however, its usage was not defined updated by RFC 6282; however, its usage was not defined in either RFC
either in RFC6282 or in RFC4944. This document updates RFC4944 and 6282 or RFC 4944. This document updates RFC 4944 and RFC 6282 by
RFC6282 by defining the ESC extension octet code points including defining the ESC extension octet code points and listing registration
registration of entries for known use cases at the time of writing of entries for known use cases at the time of writing of this document.
this document.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the Status of This Memo
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This is an Internet Standards Track document.
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 11, 2017. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8066.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Usage of ESC dispatch octets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Usage of ESC Dispatch Octets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Interaction with other RFC4944 implementations . . . . . . 4 3.1. Interaction with Other RFC 4944 Implementations . . . . . 4
3.2. ESC Extension Octets Typical Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. ESC Extension Octets Typical Sequence . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. ITU-T G.9903 ESC type usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3. ITU-T G.9903 ESC Type Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. NALP and ESC dispatch types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4. NALP and ESC Dispatch Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC4944] section 5.1 defines the dispatch header and types. The ESC Section 5.1 of [RFC4944] defines the dispatch header and types. The
type is defined for using additional dispatch octets in the 6lowpan ESC type is defined to use additional dispatch octets in the 6LoWPAN
header. RFC 6282 modifies the value of the ESC dispatch type and header. RFC 6282 modifies the value of the ESC dispatch type and
that value is recorded in IANA registry [6LOWPAN-IANA]. However, the that value is recorded in IANA registry [IANA-6LoWPAN]. However, the
octets and usage following the ESC dispatch type are not defined in octets and usage following the ESC dispatch type are not defined in
either [RFC4944] and [RFC6282]. In recent years with 6lowpan either [RFC4944] or [RFC6282]. In recent years with 6LoWPAN
deployments, implementations and standards organizations have started deployments, implementations and standards organizations have started
using the ESC extension octets. This highlights the need for an using the ESC extension octets. This highlights the need for an
updated IANA registration policy. updated IANA registration policy.
The following sections record the ITU-T specification for ESC This document defines the new "ESC Extension Types" registry and the
dispatch octet code points as an existing known usage and propose the ESC extension octets for future applications. In addition, this
definition of ESC extension octets for future applications. The document records the ITU-T specification for ESC dispatch octet code
document also requests IANA actions for the first extension octet points as an existing known usage.
following the ESC dispatch type.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Usage of ESC dispatch octets 3. Usage of ESC Dispatch Octets
RFC 4944 [RFC4944] first introduces this "ESC" dispatch header type RFC 4944 [RFC4944] first introduces this "ESC" dispatch header type
for extension of dispatch octets. RFC 6282 [RFC6282] subsequently for extension of dispatch octets. RFC 6282 [RFC6282] subsequently
modified its value to [01 000000]. modified its value to [01 000000].
This document specifies that the first octet following the ESC This document specifies that the first octet following the ESC
dispatch type be used for extension type (extended dispatch values). dispatch type be used for extension type (extended dispatch values).
Subsequent octets are left unstructured for the specific use of the Subsequent octets are left unstructured for the specific use of the
extension type: extension type:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ESC | ESC EXT Type | Extended Dispatch Payload | ESC | ESC EXT Type | Extended Dispatch Payload
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Frame Format with ESC dispatch type Figure 1: Frame Format with ESC Dispatch Type
ESC: The left-most octet is the ESC dispatch type containing ESC: The left-most octet is the ESC dispatch type containing
'01000000' '01000000'.
ESC Extension Type (EET): It is the first octet following the ESC ESC Extension Type (EET): It is the first octet following the ESC
dispatch type. Extension type defines the payload for the additional dispatch type. Extension type defines the payload for the additional
dispatch octets. The values are from 0 to 255. Values 0 and 255 are dispatch octets. The values are from 0 to 255. Values 0 and 255 are
reserved for future use. The remaining values from 1 to 254 are reserved for future use. The remaining values from 1 to 254 are
assigned by IANA. The EET values are similar to dispatch values in assigned by IANA. The EET values are similar to dispatch values in
the 6lowpan header except they are preceded by the ESC dispatch type. the 6LoWPAN header except they are preceded by the ESC dispatch type.
Thus, ESC extension types and dispatch values are using orthogonal Thus, ESC extension types and dispatch values are using orthogonal
code spaces. Though not desirable, multiple ESC dispatch types MAY code spaces. Though not desirable, multiple ESC dispatch types MAY
appear in a 6lowpan header. Section 3.1 describes how to handle an appear in a 6LoWPAN header. Section 3.1 describes how to handle an
unknown ESC dispatch type. unknown ESC dispatch type.
Extended Dispatch Payload (EDP): This part of the frame format must Extended Dispatch Payload (EDP): This part of the frame format must
be defined by the corresponding extension type. A specification is be defined by the corresponding extension type. A specification is
required to define each usage of extension type and its corresponding required to define the usage of each extension type and its
Extension Payload. For the sake of interoperability, specifications corresponding Extension Payload. For the sake of interoperability,
of extension octets MUST NOT redefine the existing ESC Extension Type specifications of extension octets MUST NOT redefine the existing ESC
codes. Extension Type codes.
Section 5.1 in RFC4944 indicates that the Extension Type field may Section 5.1 of RFC 4944 indicates that the Extension Type field may
contain additional dispatch values larger than 63, as corrected by contain additional dispatch values larger than 63, as corrected by
[4944-ERRATA]. For the sake of interoperability, the new dispatch [Err4359]. For the sake of interoperability, the new dispatch type
type (EET) MUST NOT modify the behavior of existing dispatch types (EET) MUST NOT modify the behavior of existing dispatch types
[RFC4944]. [RFC4944].
3.1. Interaction with other RFC4944 implementations 3.1. Interaction with Other RFC 4944 Implementations
It is expected that existing implementations of RFC4944 are not It is expected that existing implementations of RFC 4944 are not
capable of processing ESC extension data octets as defined in this capable of processing ESC extension data octets as defined in this
document. However, implementers have to assume that existing document. However, implementers have to assume that an existing
implementation that attempt to process an EET unknown to them will implementation that attempts to process an EET that is unknown to
simply drop the packet or ignore the ESC dispatch octets. them will simply drop the packet or ignore the ESC dispatch octets.
If an implementation following this document, during processing of If an implementation following this document, during processing of
the received packet reaches an ESC dispatch type for which it does the received packet, reaches an ESC dispatch type for which it does
not understand the extension octets (EET), it MUST drop that packet. not understand the ESC Extension Type (EET) octets, it MUST drop that
However, it is important to clarify that a router node SHOULD forward packet. However, it is important to clarify that a router node
a 6lowpan packet with the EET octets as long as it does not attempt SHOULD forward a 6LoWPAN packet with the EET octets as long as it
to process any unknown ESC extension octets. does not attempt to process any unknown ESC extension octets.
Multiple ESC extension octets may appear in a packet. The ESC Multiple ESC extension octets may appear in a packet. The ESC
dispatch types can appear as the first, last or middle dispatch dispatch types can appear as the first, last, or middle dispatch
octets. However, a packet will get dropped by any node that does not octets. However, a packet will get dropped by any node that does not
understand the EET at the beginning of the packet. Placing an EET understand the EET at the beginning of the packet. Placing an EET
toward the front of the packet has a greater probability of causing toward the front of the packet has a greater probability of causing
the packet to be dropped than placing the same EET later in the the packet to be dropped than placing the same EET later in the
packet. Placement of an EET later in the packet increases the chance packet. Placement of an EET later in the packet increases the chance
that a legacy device will recognize and successfully process some that a legacy device will recognize and successfully process some
dispatch type [RFC4944] before the EET. In this case, the legacy dispatch type [RFC4944] before the EET. In this case, the legacy
device will ignore the EET instead of dropping the entire packet. device will ignore the EET instead of dropping the entire packet.
3.2. ESC Extension Octets Typical Sequence 3.2. ESC Extension Octets Typical Sequence
ESC Extension octets sequence and order with respect to 6LoWPAN Mesh The sequence and order of ESC extension octets with respect to the
header and LoWPAN_IPHC header are described below. When LOWPAN_IPHC 6LoWPAN Mesh header and LOWPAN_IPHC header are described below. When
dispatch type is present, ESC dispatch types MUST appear before the the LOWPAN_IPHC dispatch type is present, ESC dispatch types MUST
LOWPAN_IPHC dispatch type in order to maintain backward compatibility appear before the LOWPAN_IPHC dispatch type in order to maintain
with RFC6282 section 3.2. The following diagrams provide examples of backward compatibility with Section 3.2 of RFC 6282. The following
ESC extension octet usages: diagrams provide examples of ESC extension octet usages:
A LoWPAN encapsulated IPv6 Header compressed packet: A LoWPAN encapsulated IPv6 Header compressed packet:
+-------+------+--------+--------+-----------------+--------+ +-------+------+--------+--------+-----------------+--------+
| ESC | EET | EDP |Dispatch| LOWPAN_IPHC hdr | Payld | | ESC | EET | EDP |Dispatch| LOWPAN_IPHC hdr | Payld |
+-------+------+--------+--------+-----------------+--------+ +-------+------+--------+--------+-----------------+--------+
A LoWPAN_IPHC Header, Mesh header and an ESC extension octet: A LoWPAN_IPHC Header, Mesh header and an ESC extension octet:
+-----+-----+-----+----+------+-------+---------------+------+ +-----+-----+-----+----+------+-------+---------------+------+
|M typ| Mhdr| ESC | EET|EDP |Disptch|LOWPAN_IPHC hdr| Payld| |M typ| Mhdr| ESC | EET|EDP |Disptch|LOWPAN_IPHC hdr| Payld|
+-----+-----+-----+----+------+-------+---------------+------+ +-----+-----+-----+----+------+-------+---------------+------+
A Mesh header with ESC dispatch types A Mesh header with ESC dispatch types:
+-------+-------+-----+-----+-------+ +-------+-------+-----+-----+-------+
| M Typ | M Hdr | ESC | EET |EDP | | M Typ | M Hdr | ESC | EET |EDP |
+-------+-------+-----+-----+-------+ +-------+-------+-----+-----+-------+
With Fragment header With Fragment header:
+-------+-------+--------+------+-----+-----+-------+ +-------+-------+--------+------+-----+-----+-------+
| M Typ | M Hdr | F Typ | F hdr|ESC | EET | EDP | | M Typ | M Hdr | F Typ | F hdr|ESC | EET | EDP |
+-------+-------+--------+------+-----+-----+-------+ +-------+-------+--------+------+-----+-----+-------+
ESC dispatch type as a LowPAN encapsulation ESC dispatch type as a LowPAN encapsulation:
+--------+--------+--------+ +--------+--------+--------+
| ESC | EET | EDP | | ESC | EET | EDP |
+--------+--------+--------+ +--------+--------+--------+
Figure 2: A 6lowpan packet with ESC dispatch types Figure 2: A 6LoWPAN Packet with ESC Dispatch Types
3.3. ITU-T G.9903 ESC type usage 3.3. ITU-T G.9903 ESC Type Usage
The ESC dispatch type is used in [G3-PLC] to provide native mesh The ESC dispatch type is used in [G3-PLC] to provide native mesh
routing and bootstrapping functionalities. The ITU-T recommendation routing and bootstrapping functionalities. The ITU-T recommendation
[G3-PLC] section 9.4.2.3 defines commands which are formatted like [G3-PLC] (see Section 9.4.2.3) defines commands that are formatted
ESC Extension type fields. The command ID values are 0x01 to 0x1F. like ESC Extension Type fields. The command ID values are 0x01 to
0x1F.
The frame format is defined as follows: The frame format is defined as follows:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 1| ESC | Command ID | Command Payload |0 1| ESC | Command ID | Command Payload
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: G.9903 Frame Format with ESC dispatch type Figure 3: G.9903 Frame Format with ESC Dispatch Type
3.4. NALP and ESC dispatch types 3.4. NALP and ESC Dispatch Types
According to RFC4944 [RFC4944] section 5.1, NALP dispatch octets are According to Section 5.1 of RFC 4944 [RFC4944], NALP dispatch octets
reserved for use as a kind of escape code for identification of non- are reserved for use as a kind of escape code for identification of
6lowpan payloads. Since ESC dispatch types are part of 6lowpan non-6LoWPAN payloads. Since ESC dispatch types are part of 6LoWPAN
dispatch types (extended), they are orthogonal to NALP octets. dispatch types (extended), they are orthogonal to NALP octets.
This document clarifies that NALP dispatch codes only provide an This document clarifies that NALP dispatch codes only provide an
escape method for non-6LoWPAN payloads when they appear as the escape method for non-6LoWPAN payloads when they appear as the
initial octet of a LoWPAN encapsulation, and that the potential initial octet of a LoWPAN encapsulation, and that the potential
meaning of their appearance in any other location is reserved for meaning of their appearance in any other location is reserved for
future use. future use.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA to register the 'ESC Extension Type' IANA has registered the 'ESC Extension Types' values per the policy
values per the policy 'Specification Required' [RFC5226], following 'Specification Required' [RFC5226], following the same policy as in
the same policy as in the IANA Considerations section of [RFC4944]. the IANA Considerations section of [RFC4944]. For each Extension
For each Extension Type (except the Reserved values) the Type (except the Reserved values), the specification MUST define
specification MUST define corresponding Extended Dispatch Payload corresponding Extended Dispatch Payload frame octets for the receiver
frame octets for the receiver implementation to read the ESC dispatch implementation to read the ESC dispatch types in an interoperable
types in an interoperable fashion. fashion.
[RFC5226] section 4.1 also indicates that "Specification Required" Section 4.1 of [RFC5226] indicates that "Specification Required"
calls for a Designated Expert review of the public specification calls for a Designated Expert review of the public specification
requesting registration of the ESC Extension Type values. requesting registration of the ESC Extension Type values.
The allocation of code points should follow the guidelines on "Usage The allocation of code points should follow the guidelines on "Usage
of ESC dispatch octets" and the typical example sections. ESC of ESC Dispatch Octets" (Section 3) and the typical example
Extension type code points MUST be used in conjunction with 6lo (Section 3.2) sections. ESC Extension Type code points MUST be used
protocols following [RFC4944] or its derivatives. The requesting in conjunction with 6lo protocols following [RFC4944] or its
document MUST specify how the ESC dispatch octets will be used along derivatives. The requesting document MUST specify how the ESC
with 6LOWPAN headers in their use cases. dispatch octets will be used along with 6LoWPAN headers in their use
cases.
The initial values for the 'ESC Extension Type' fields are: The initial values for the 'ESC Extension Type' fields are as
follows:
+-------+---------------------------------+---------------+ +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference | | Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+---------------------------------+---------------+ +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
| 0 | Reserved for future use | This document | | 0 | Reserved | This document |
| | | | | | | |
| 1-31 | Used by ITU-T G.9903 and G.9905 | ITU-T G.9903 &| | 1-31 | Used by ITU-T G.9903 and G.9905 | ITU-T G.9903 &|
| | Command IDs | ITU-T G.9905 | | | Command IDs | ITU-T G.9905 |
| | | | | | | |
| 32-254| Unassigned | This document | | 32-254| Unassigned | |
| |(Reserved for future IANA | |
| | Assignment-- Spec Required) | |
| | | | | | | |
| 255 | Reserved for future use | This document | | 255 | Reserved | This document |
+-------+---------------------------------+---------------+ +-------+---------------------------------+---------------+
Figure 4: Initial Values for IANA Registry Figure 4: Initial Values for the ESC Extension Types Registry
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
There are no additional security threats due to the assignments of There are no additional security threats due to the assignments of
ESC dispatch type usage described in this document. Furthermore, ESC dispatch type usage described in this document. Furthermore,
this document forbids defining any extended dispatch values or this document forbids defining any extended dispatch values or
extension types that modify the behavior of existing Dispatch types. extension types that modify the behavior of existing dispatch types.
6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the members of the 6lo WG for their
comments. Many thanks to Carsten Bormann, Ralph Droms, Thierry Lys,
Cedric Lavenu, Pascal Thubert for discussions regarding the bits
allocation issues, which led to this document. Jonathan Hui and
Robert Cragie provided extensive reviews and guidance for
interoperability. The authors acknowledge the comments from the
following people that helped shape this document: Paul Duffy, Don
Sturek, Michael Richardson, Xavier Vilajosana, Scott Mansfield, Dale
Worley and Russ Housley. Thanks to Brian Haberman, our document
shepherd, for guidance in the IANA Considerations section.
This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool.
7. References 6. References
7.1. Normative References 6.1. Normative References
[4944-ERRATA] [Err4359] RFC Errata, Erratum ID 4359, RFC 4944,
"https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4944". <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=4359>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler, [RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
"Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007, Networks", RFC 4944, DOI 10.17487/RFC4944, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4944>.
[RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6 [RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6
Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282, Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6282>.
7.2. Informative References 6.2. Informative References
[6LOWPAN-IANA]
"https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/
_6lowpan-parameters.xhtml".
[6loCHART] [G3-PLC] International Telecommunications Union, "G.9903 :
"https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/6lo/charter". Narrowband orthogonal frequency division multiplexing
power line communication transceivers for G3-PLC
networks", February 2014,
<http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.9903-201402-I>.
[G3-PLC] "http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.9903-201402-I". [IANA-6LoWPAN]
IANA, "IPv6 Low Power Personal Area Network Parameters",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the members of the 6lo WG for their
comments. Many thanks to Carsten Bormann, Ralph Droms, Thierry Lys,
Cedric Lavenu, and Pascal Thubert for discussions regarding the bits
allocation issues, which led to this document. Jonathan Hui and
Robert Cragie provided extensive reviews and guidance for
interoperability. The authors acknowledge the comments from the
following people that helped shape this document: Paul Duffy, Don
Sturek, Michael Richardson, Xavier Vilajosana, Scott Mansfield, Dale
Worley, and Russ Housley. Thanks to Brian Haberman, our document
shepherd, for guidance in the IANA Considerations section.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Samita Chakrabarti Samita Chakrabarti
San Jose, CA San Jose, CA
USA United States of America
Email: samitac.ietf@gmail.com Email: samitac.ietf@gmail.com
Gabriel Montenegro Gabriel Montenegro
Microsoft Microsoft
USA United States of America
Email: gabriel.montenegro@microsoft.com Email: gabriel.montenegro@microsoft.com
Ralph Droms Ralph Droms
USA United States of America
Email: rdroms.ietf@gmail.com Email: rdroms.ietf@gmail.com
James Woodyatt James Woodyatt
Google Google
Mountain View, CA Mountain View, CA
USA United States of America
Email: jhw@google.com Email: jhw@google.com
 End of changes. 61 change blocks. 
150 lines changed or deleted 146 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/