Technical Summary:
The ITU-T G.9959 recommendation targets low-power Personal Area Networks.
This document defines the frame format for transmission of IPv6 [RFC2460] packets
as well as the formation of IPv6 link-local addresses and statelessly autoconfigured IPv6
addresses on G.9959 networks. The general approach of this document is to adapt
6lowpan base documents (RFC 4944, RFC 6282 and RFC 6775) with minor modifications
for running efficiently in G.9959 networks.
The document also discusses mapping of G.9959 parameters (ex: HomeID) into IPv6
address formation.
Working Group Summary:
The work on draft-ietf-6lo-lowpanz started sometime ago in 6lowpan WG and now the work
is transferred to 6lo WG. It has been reviewed by several members of the WG. During
WGLC an improvement request came in to update the solution for non-MAC derived IPv6
address support. In addition there were comments by Carsten Bormann on multiple cases
of SHOULD and MUST in the document. The changes were substantial. The document
addressed privacy comments by providing options for using frequently changing managed
addressing (example DHCPv6) at the cost of efficiency and cost of operations. However the
link-layer address MUST be derived from the IID in order to provide efficient header compression
described in RFC6282. In the constrained environment, the compression and ability for quick
identification might be more practical and desirable than privacy as usually these networks come
with gateway devices. However, because of the substantial changes in the document after the first
WGLC, the 6lo-chairs decided to have a second LC. During second LC, there were comments
on clarification and editorial changes. After the LC, there were several comments from the
co-chair/shepherd and the document authors also addressed them mostly and finally published
version 05. The WGLC comments are listed in the issue tracker.
Document Quality:
There is currently a single implementation available by Sigma design which has products in
Z-wave technology area. We do not know about other Z-wave implementations of this draft.
However, once it becomes RFC, it will be referenced in the Z-Wave Alliance documents and
it will then be expected to be implemented by other Z-Wave vendors in due course. Note that
Z-wave vendors are not typical IETF participants. Carsten Bormann's name can be mentioned
as one of the thorough reviewers who suggested non-trivial changes.
Personnel:
Document shepherd: Samita Chakrabarti
Responsible Area Director: Brian Haberman