F27-RI: No
Rationale
The selected RFC 6775 registration exchange negotiates neither transmission windows nor the intervening receiver inactivity schedule. A host chooses its sleep interval locally and registers an address lifetime long enough to cover it; the router confirmation maintains address reachability state, not a timed communication agreement. The selected RPL/6LoWPAN/DTLS composition adds no window-negotiation protocol.
Assessment method
Primary specification and pinned code review; no runtime experiment
Source context
RFC 6775 sleeping hosts and RFC 8180 TSCH boundary
Outstanding qualification
F27 is distinct from F24. Even the contrasting minimal RFC 8180 TSCH schedule is learned on joining and shared by all nodes; that document leaves dynamic schedule management outside scope. It is not selected here and is not evidence of bilateral window negotiation. A separately specified scheduling function or link mechanism could change this assessment. This does not deny sleeping-host support or imply that ordinary registration must run continuously.
Public sources
- https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6775.html#section-5.8.1
- https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8180.html#section-1
Editorial evidence references
The following identifiers refer to research records not included in this public package; they are not public links.
- round508.html
- round508-sources.json