Re: [6lo] review of 6lo-blemesh

Thank you Carles and authors.
I read the diff and my comments are handled with what I had in mind.

Best,
Rahul

On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 at 03:18, Carles Gomez Montenegro
<carlesgo@entel.upc.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi Rahul,
>
> Many thanks for your last review!
>
> We just submitted -07, which is intended to incorporate your last round of
> comments.
>
> Should you have further comments, please do not hesitate to let us know.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carles
>
>
>
>
> > Carles, Thanks for incorporating the comments and feedback. I did a round
> > of review and the comments are handled according to what I had in mind.
> > Thanks.
> >
> > There are some more comments I had during my subsequent review. Please
> > have
> > a look. I will provide the shepherd write-up after this.
> >
> > Best,
> > Rahul
> >
> > --------Comments-------
> > 1) Section 2
> > "The IPv6 forwarding devices of the mesh have to implement both Node and
> > Router
> > roles, while simpler leaf-only nodes can implement only the Node role."
> > The roles here refer to roles as described in Bluetooth IPSP Spec. I was
> > confused with the Host and Route mode as described in RFC 4861. I would
> > suggest
> > adding explicit ref here.
> > [Later I found that a para above has a context for IPSP and the
> > Node/Router
> > roles. Thus I would leave it up to you to add an explicit ref.]
> >
> > 2) Section 3.3.1:
> > "Multihop DAD functionality as defined ... MUST be supported."
> > RFC7668 didn't mandate DAD. I am not sure if we should mandate it here. If
> > an
> > implementation decides to use SLAAC with a static link address then DAD
> > won't be
> > necessary. The cost of multihop DAD is high.
> >
> > 3) Section 3.3.2:
> > "A Bluetooth LE host MUST register its non-link-local addresses ... "
> >
> > This stmt contradicts with another stmt in section 3.3.3 which says,
> > "A 6LN SHOULD register its non-link-local address with EARO in the
> > next-hop router.  Note that in some cases (e.g. very short-lived
> > connections) it may not be worthwhile for a 6LN to send an NS with
> > EARO for registering its address."
> >
> > My suggestion would be to use SHOULD even in Section 3.3.2.
> >
> > 4) Section 3.3.3:
> > "... non-link-local packet transmissions originated and performed by a
> > 6LN,
> > and
> > non-link-local packets intended for a 6LN that are originated or forwarded
> > by a
> > neighbor of that 6LN."
> > What does "performed by a 6LN" imply here? Suggest just keeping originated
> > by
> > a 6LN, unless I am missing sth here.
> >
> > 5) [nit] Section 3.3.3:
> > "..., context- based compression MAY be used."
> > remove space between "context- based"
> > --------End of Comments-------
> >
> > On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 01:04, Carles Gomez Montenegro <
> > carlesgo@entel.upc.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Rahul,
> >>
> >> First of all, apologies for the late response.
> >>
> >> Thank you very much for your review.
> >>
> >> We have just submitted -06, which is intended to address your comments:
> >> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-06
> >>
> >> Should you have any further concerns, please do not hesitate to let us
> >> know.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Carles (as a WG participant)
> >>
> >>
> >> > Dear authors,
> >> >
> >> > Following are some review comments based on the latest updates to the
> >> > document:
> >> > 1. In the last revision, the draft mandated the use of NS(EARO) in
> >> > place NS(ARO). This change is not consistently applied in the
> >> > document. E.g., in section 3.3.3, the draft continues to use NS(ARO).
> >> > 2. Section 3.3.3 also mandates the use of the 6CO option. 6CO option
> >> > may not be necessary in case a single prefix is used in the network.
> >> > The CID defaults to zero which results in the use of default prefix.
> >> > 3. Section 3.3.3 the following statement is not clear, "In particular,
> >> > the latter comprise link-local interactions, non-link- local packet
> >> > transmissions originated and performed by a 6LN, and non-link-local
> >> > packets transmitted (but not necessarily originated) by the neighbor
> >> > of a 6LN to that 6LN."
> >> > 4. I think the draft will benefit from a call flow diagram depicting
> >> > the node joining procedure.
> >> >    6LN ----(RS)-------> 6LR
> >> >    6LN <---(RA-PIO)---- 6LR
> >> >    6LN ----(NS-EARO)--> 6LR
> >> >    [Multihop DAD procedure]
> >> >    6LN <---(NA)--------  6LR
> >> >    6LN can now start acting as 6LR and advertise its own RA
> >> >    6LN ----(RA)--
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Rahul
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > 6lo mailing list
> >> > 6lo@ietf.org
> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>