Re: [6lo] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-02

"Carles Gomez Montenegro" <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu> Sun, 21 July 2019 08:59 UTC

Return-Path: <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>
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 96F1512004A; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 01:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 cDC6uyn-9vPG; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 01:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from violet.upc.es (violet.upc.es [147.83.2.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A20F12000E; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 01:59:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from entelserver.upc.edu (entelserver.upc.es [147.83.39.4]) by violet.upc.es (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id x6L8xhaD007520; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 10:59:43 +0200
Received: from webmail.entel.upc.edu (webmail.entel.upc.edu [147.83.39.6]) by entelserver.upc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A5471D53C1; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 10:59:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from 96.20.67.192 by webmail.entel.upc.edu with HTTP; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 10:59:43 +0200
Message-ID: <ccafd73bb4e0196b1e5fb4ff43c2b966.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB3565EB2836C0D546D7820852D8CB0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <e463b1578b1772379eba2fbb4b035015.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu> <MN2PR11MB3565EB2836C0D546D7820852D8CB0@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 10:59:43 +0200
From: "Carles Gomez Montenegro" <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21-1.fc14
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.100.2 at violet
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Delayed for 89:26:59 by milter-greylist-4.3.9 (violet.upc.es [147.83.2.51]); Sun, 21 Jul 2019 10:59:44 +0200 (CEST)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/Bs3yGSgHG2E_mqqrnwJlwmn6imc>
Subject: Re: [6lo] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-02
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: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 08:59:53 -0000

Hello Pascal, Carsten,

Yes, I am OK with your proposed updates, including that the title becomes
"6LoWPAN Fragment Forwarding".

Thanks for addressing my comments!

Cheers,

Carles



> Hello Carles
>
> Manu thanks for you review!
>
> Please see below
>
>>
>> - "LLN" is used in the title and in the abstract, but the actual body of
>> the
>> document uses the term "6LoWPAN" (or "6Lo"), which in fact is more
>> specific.
>> Should "LLN" be replaced with "6LoWPAN" (or "6Lo")?  (I tend to think
>> so...)
>>
>
> Yes, in the title that makes sense.
> Actually we use the term Low Power Lossy Network beyond 6lo, e.g., in
> ROLL.
> I'd rather keep the term but certainly expand it on first use.
>
>> - The document uses the term "minimal" also in the title and in the
>> abstract,
>> but the document does not explicitly define how the concept of "minimal"
>> needs to be understood. Furthermore, "minimal" is not present in the
>> body of
>> the document. Perhaps some clarification on the concept of "minimal"
>> (e.g. in
>> the Introduction) might help the reader.
>
> Right.
> It is minimal vs. the flow control and recovery of the other draft. This
> is why we split.
> But I agree with you that the term minimal is not needed at all. Could we
> just remove it?
> Based on your 2 suggestions combined, the title becomes "6LoWPAN Fragment
> Forwarding"
>
>>
>> - The idnits tool reports a few issues that should be taken care of (at
>> least, the
>> first and the last ones). Please find them below for your
>> convenience:
>>
>>   ** The abstract seems to contain references
>>      ([I-D.ietf-lwig-6lowpan-virtual-reassembly]), which it shouldn't.
>>      Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the
>> documents in
>>      question.
>
> Ack: The resulting abstract would be:
>
> This document provides a simple method to forwarding 6LoWPAN fragments.
> When employing adaptation layer fragmentation in 6LoWPAN, it may be
> beneficial
> for a forwarder not to have to reassemble each packet in its entirety
> before forwarding it.
> This has always been possible with the original fragmentation design of
> RFC4944.
> This method reduces the latency and increases end-to-end reliability in
> route-over forwarding.
> It is the companion to the virtual Reassembly Buffer which is a pure
> implementation technique.
>
>
>>   -- The document date (June 24, 2019) is 24 days in the past.  Is this
>>      intentional?
>
> I'll post a 03
>
>>   -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code
>>      sections in the document, please surround them with '<CODE BEGINS>'
>> and
>>      '<CODE ENDS>' lines.
>
> NO such thing.
>
>>   == Unused Reference: 'BOOK' is defined on line 266, but no explicit
>>      reference was found in the text
>
> Removed the ref
>
>>      Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments
>> (--).
>>
>> I have no further comments.
>>
>
> Great!
>
> Please confirm that you're OK with the changes above and Ill post
>
> Many thanks again
>
> Pascal
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lo mailing list
> 6lo@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
>