IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6lo] comments on draft-hou-6lo-plc-04

"Liubing (Remy)" <remy.liubing@huawei.com> Tue, 23 October 2018 02:07 UTC

Return-Path: <remy.liubing@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41D49130DEE for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 19:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VvypI_-4ADXP for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 19:07:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AED6E130DE5 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Oct 2018 19:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 24E7D7E88C407 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 03:07:13 +0100 (IST)
Received: from DGGEMM401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.20.209) by lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 03:07:14 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.52]) by DGGEMM401-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.3.20.209]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 10:07:09 +0800
From: "Liubing (Remy)" <remy.liubing@huawei.com>
To: sajjad akbar <sajjad.akr1@gmail.com>
CC: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [6lo] comments on draft-hou-6lo-plc-04
Thread-Index: AdRmrikovygv8CO8QGiILzdXNMQstQCpUMYAAEgd6LA=
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 02:07:09 +0000
Message-ID: <BB09947B5326FE42BA3918FA28765C2EEB01E8@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <12E1A4464B8C5C43A3A4B6B61F7DC60C0199AAEA@dggemi523-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CAByBar8OxT09rF_66wRhkUxbG2jVn2w2d5KAJ813oAQ2rL0Suw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAByBar8OxT09rF_66wRhkUxbG2jVn2w2d5KAJ813oAQ2rL0Suw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.130.180.83]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BB09947B5326FE42BA3918FA28765C2EEB01E8DGGEMM506MBXchina_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/5XKHw7GyZ1JYQW3Jj8iAkzUQQPI>
Subject: Re: [6lo] comments on draft-hou-6lo-plc-04
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 02:07:22 -0000

Hello Sajjad,

Many thanks to your comments. We have uploaded the 05 version of the draft. The modification is based on the previous comments that we received these days. The fragmentation section is also clarified. Please go check if the 05 version meets your expectation.

Regards,
Remy

From: 6lo [mailto:6lo-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of sajjad akbar
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 7:34 AM
To: Chenlihao (Lihao, IP Technology Research Dept NW) <lihao.chen@huawei.com>
Cc: lo <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [6lo] comments on draft-hou-6lo-plc-04

Hello authors,

The draft is much more clear than its initial version. Good work. I would suggest you to clear the discussion about fragmentation. In the current version its little confusing, for example you can clearly describe either itstransport layer or MAC layer fragmentation. Even if you are not using you can eliminate confusing text.

Regards
Sajjad

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 5:47 PM Chenlihao (Lihao, IP Technology Research Dept NW) <lihao.chen@huawei.com<mailto:lihao.chen@huawei.com>> wrote:
Hello authors,

I think this draft gives a good guideline for IPv6 adaptation on PLC. The draft has a quite complete description. However, some points need to be clarified. Please find my comments below.

- The preface of the section 3 is not well organized. The content of the two paragraphs seems to be relevant, but the features of the same PLC technology are not in the same paragraph.

- It is reasonable that different PLC technologies have different terminologies, but the draft should build up a mapping between them. For example, in section 4.3, 1901.1 uses NID and TEI, while 1901.2 uses PAN ID and Device ID.

- For Fragmentation and Reassembly, the draft says that “the number of data octets of the PHY payload can change dynamically based on channel conditions”, thus even for IEEE 1901.1 and 1901.2, the MTU can be lower than 1280 bytes. But the second paragraph says that fragmentation and assembly MUST NOT be used. Any contradiction here?

- The “charging station to EV communication” use case may not be appropriate for using ADOV-RPL in PLC tree network. Since the charging station and the EV are directly connected to each other, it should be parent to child communication instead of P2P.


Cheers,
Lihao


_______________________________________________
6lo mailing list
6lo@ietf.org<mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email