Re: [6lo] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-6lo-plc

[Carles Gomez Montenegro <[e-mail]>]

Hello Remy,

First of all, sorry for the late response.

Thanks for taking my comments into consideration.

Please find below my inline responses (labeled [Carles]):

> Hello Carles,
>
> Thank you very much for your detailed review.

[Carles] You are welcome!

> We accept most of your suggestions.

[Carles] Thanks!

> Meanwhile, items that need further
> discussion are posted below.
>
> 1. This specification provides a brief overview of PLC technologies.
>      Some of them have LLN characteristics, i.e. limited power
>
> Just a weak suggestion: LLN is a recognized term in many domains.
> Nevertheless, feel free to consider using "Constrained-Node Network (CNN)
> (see RFC 7228).
> [Remy] Maybe LLN is a better choice since it is used in many RFCs in IOT
> domain as well. Thank you for your suggestion though.

[Carles] Feel free to use the term that you prefer.

> 2.   RPL (Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) [RFC6550]
>         is a layer 3 routing protocol.  AODV-RPL [I-D.ietf-roll-aodv-rpl]
>         updates RPL to include reactive, point-to-point, and asymmetric
>         routing.  IEEE 1901.2 specifies Information Elements (IEs) with
>         MAC layer metrics, which can be provided to L3 routing protocol
>         for parent selection.  For IPv6-addressable PLC networks, a
>         layer-3 routing protocol such as RPL and/or AODV-RPL SHOULD be
>         supported in the standard.
>
> Why "SHOULD"?  And if "SHOULD" is the right term here, perhaps add some
> clarification on reasons or circumstances motivating using a protocol
> different from RPL and/or AODV-RPL?
> [Remy] Yes, this sentence makes people confused. The reason why "SHOULD"
> is used is that we have other options like L2-routing and LOADng. But this
> sentence looks redundant now, because the whole section is talking about
> the three options. Do you think it is OK to remove this sentence?

[Carles] Yes, I agree to remove this sentence.

> 3. IEEE 1901.1 supports 12-bit and 48-bit addresses. Header compression
> over IEEE 1901.1 will need some form of adaptation, since RFC 6282 refers
> to 16-bit and 64-bit addresses.
> [Remy] Yes, we need adaptation. How to generate IID from 12-bit (1901.1),
> 16-bit (G.9903 and 1901.2) and 48-bit address is defined in section 4.1
> (Stateless Address Autoconfiguration). And using the same method, the
> original IPv6 address can be recovered from the L2 address. Thus that's
> where the adaptation is defined. It may be not explicit enough. Actually,
> the encoding format defined in RFC6282 applies to all the PLC technologies
> mentioned in this draft. The only difference is: for 1901.1, when the SAM
> or DAM in RFC6282 is set to 2, it means the source or destination IPv6
> address is compressed to 12 bits instead of 16bits.

[Carles] In my opinion, adding some more explicit note would be helpful.

> 4. PAN Coordinator (PANC) and PAN Device.  The PANC is the primary
>    coordinator of the PLC subnet and can be seen as a master node; PAN
>    Devices are typically PLC meters and sensors.  The PANC also serves
>    as the Routing Registrar for proxy registration and DAD procedures,
>    making use of the updated registration procedures in [RFC8505].  IPv6
>    over PLC networks are built as tree, mesh or star according to the
>    use cases.  Every network requires at least one PANC to communicate
>    with each PAN Device.
>
> The last sentence was unclear. Who/What communicates with each PAN
> Device?
> [Remy] We meant "the PANC communicates with the PAN devices". We try to
> rephrase: Generally, each PLC network has one PANC. In some cases, the PLC
> network can have alternate coordinators to replace the PANC when the PANC
> leaves the network for some reason.

[Carles] Your new proposed text looks good to me.

> 5. What is the subnet model for the scenarios illustrated in this
> section?
> For example, is the "PLC subnet" a multilink subnet? Is each link in the
> "PLC subnet" a subnet?
> [Remy] It is a multilink subnet, instead of "each link is a subnet".

[Carles] Thanks. Please add some text on this feature to the document.

Best regards,

Carles


> Best regards,
> Remy