[6lo] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-12: (with COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 19 February 2020 13:33 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietf.org
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC5ED120019; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 05:33:45 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke_via_Datatracker?= <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment@ietf.org, Carles Gomez <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>, 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, carlesgo@entel.upc.edu, 6lo@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.118.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke?= <evyncke@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <158211922582.23771.13449460445832408679.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 05:33:45 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/IU95NFla8aQo7haDGD7rWKpm-Xw>
Subject: [6lo] =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-ietf-?= =?utf-8?q?6lo-minimal-fragment-12=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 13:33:46 -0000

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. It is very easy to read.

Nevertheless, please find below some non-blocking COMMENTs (and I would
appreciate a response from the authors) and NITS.

As I reviewed draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery before this document, I put some
COMMENTs in my review of draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery that also apply to
this document.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

Is there a reason why this document uses "Link-Layer address" while the
companion, draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery, uses "MAC address" ? This is
cosmetic of course but if the concept is the same, using the same wording could
only improve the readability of the documents. Same applies for "datagram_tag"
vs "Datagram_Tag" ;-)

-- Section 5 --
"Multiple fragments may progress in parallel" is not really correct as the
rather travel "simultaneously" as they follow the same path but at different
steps (i.e. not like using parallel links).

-- Section 6 --
The "no per-fragment routing" can also be seen as an advantage as it forces all
fragments to be in order.

== NITS ==

Is the case in "Link-Layer" correct? I am a non native speaker but I would have
used "link-layer".