Re: [6lo] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-01

<dominique.barthel@orange.com> Thu, 09 May 2019 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <dominique.barthel@orange.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 B9FBB120122 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 May 2019 08:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 gE75gBR0A_eH for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 May 2019 08:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orange.com (mta240.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.66.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F3491200FF for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 May 2019 08:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar03.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.5]) by opfedar24.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 450H7V58shz5wxg; Thu, 9 May 2019 17:19:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.64]) by opfedar03.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 450H7V4RthzCqkX; Thu, 9 May 2019 17:19:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCAUBM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::d42b:2e80:86c2:5905]) by OPEXCAUBMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::90fe:7dc1:fb15:a02b%21]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Thu, 9 May 2019 17:19:18 +0200
From: <dominique.barthel@orange.com>
To: Carles Gomez Montenegro <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>, "shwethab@cisco.com" <shwethab@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [6lo] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-01
Thread-Index: AQHVBnqRkk5U7tisdk6SfX/Wr8QMhA==
Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 15:19:17 +0000
Message-ID: <16705_1557415158_5CD444F6_16705_80_1_D8F9EB69.60DDC%dominique.barthel@orange.com>
References: <3821d72b6775aa954dec6f8bbb3723f8.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <3821d72b6775aa954dec6f8bbb3723f8.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.7.3.170325
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.247]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <857538DFC8AC634FBAEE515FE393AB66@adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/FobyDToNhulc9YjZAfDmPyQHcvQ>
Subject: Re: [6lo] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-01
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: Thu, 09 May 2019 15:19:23 -0000

Hello Carles, Shwetha, authors, all,

I've read draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-01.
It seems clear and well written.
I only have a few comments:

Section 1, Overview:
"Each fragment can be uniquely identified by the source and destination
link-layer addresses of the frame that carries it, and the datagram_tag."
It seems to me that "datagram_offset" should also be mentioned here as
contributing to uniquely identifying a fragment.

Section 2.2
"Assuming the topology from Figure 2, where nodes A, B, C and D all send
packets through node E." Incorrect grammatical construct.


Section 3
"Each VRB table entry can be 12 B (assuming 16-bit link-layer addresses)."
It is not immediately obvious to me why 12. I guess I could try to figure
it out.
But [ARTICLE] says 20. Probably under a different assumption.
Could you provide a detailed count, to spare the reader the exercise?
BTW, in [ARTICLE], it seems to me that some means and remembering which
fragment have already been forwarded are missing. The key sentence is
"After having forwarded the last fragment, node B clears that VRB entry",
but how does node B knows is has forwarded all fragments? The same comment
applies to draft-ietf-lwig-6lowpan-virtual-reassembly-01. But I'm
digressing here.

Section 7, references
Ref [ARTICLE] is dated 2009, I guess you mean 2019. Besides, I could only
find the HAL archive, I suppose this is accepted for publication, but not
published yet.
Oops, just saw that Georgios already uncovered this nit.



					
				
			
		
	
Best regards

Dominique


Le 24/04/19 10:54, « 6lo on behalf of Carles Gomez Montenegro »
<6lo-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of carlesgo@entel.upc.edu> a écrit :

>Dear 6lo WG,
>
>Authors of draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-01 expressed in IETF 104 that
>they believe that the document is ready for WGLC. No comments or
>objections were made in this regard.
>
>Therefore, this email starts a WGLC for
>draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-01:
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-01
>
>The WGLC will end on Wednesday, 8th of May.
>
>Please provide your feedback on the document on the mailing list, even if
>it is just a short "looks good" statement.
>
>Thank you in advance.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Shwetha and Carles
>
>_______________________________________________
>6lo mailing list
>6lo@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.