Re: [6lo] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-08

[Carles Gomez Montenegro <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pete,

Thanks a lot for your review of the draft!

We just submitted -09, which aims at addressing the last round of review
comments, including yours:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-09
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-09

Please find below our inline responses to your comments:

> Reviewer: Pete Resnick
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-08
> Reviewer: Pete Resnick
> Review Date: 2020-12-04
> IETF LC End Date: 2020-10-21
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>
> Summary: Looks good to me, with two items that seemed confusing enough
> that
> they should be addressed.
>
> Note that this review is being done well after the close of the Last Call.
> Since this is not yet scheduled for a telechat, the AD asked that I go
> ahead
> and complete the review anyway.
>
> Major issues: None
>
> Minor issues:
>
> 3.3.2, #4:
>
>    Implementations of this specification MAY support
>    the features described in sections 8.1 and 8.2 of RFC 6775, as
>    updated by RFC 8505, unless some alternative ("substitute") from some
>    other specification is supported by the implementation.
>
> This bit confused me. I think it was the "unless". Do you mean it MAY
> support
> the 6775/8505 features, or MAY support some substitute, or MAY support
> neither,
> or do you mean that it MUST support either the 6775/8505 features or MUST
> support some substitute? I think you want to rewrite this to make it clear
> which one you mean.

Agreed. We modified the text as follows:

NEW:
   Implementations of this specification MUST either
   support the features described in sections 8.1 and 8.2 of RFC 6775,
   as updated by RFC 8505, or some alternative ("substitute") mechanism.

> 3.3.3, last two paragraphs:
>
>    When a 6LN transmits a packet, with a non-link-local source address
>    that the 6LN has registered with EARO in the next-hop router for the
>    indicated prefix, the source address MUST be fully elided if it is
>    the latest address that the 6LN has registered for the indicated
>    prefix (SAC=1, SAM=11).  If the source non-link-local address is not
>    the latest registered by the 6LN, then the 64 bits of the IID SHALL
>    be fully carried in-line (SAC=1, SAM=01) or if the first 48 bits of
>    the IID match with the latest address registered by the 6LN, then the
>    last 16 bits of the IID SHALL be carried in-line (SAC=1, SAM=10).
>
>    When a router transmits a packet to a neighboring 6LN, with a non-
>    link-local destination address, the router MUST fully elide the
>    destination IPv6 address if the destination address is the latest
>    registered by the 6LN with EARO for the indicated context (DAC=1,
>    DAM=11).  If the destination address is a non-link-local address and
>    not the latest registered, then the 6LN MUST either include the IID
>    part fully in-line (DAM=01) or, if the first 48 bits of the IID match
>    to the latest registered address, then elide those 48 bits (DAM=10).
>
> Both of these were a bit confusing to me. I think you want to reverse the
> order
> of the last two choices. Say something like (for the first paragraph), "If
> the
> source non-link-local address is not the latest registered by the 6LN and
> the
> first 48 bits match..., then the last 16 bits SHALL be carried in-line.
> Otherwise, if first 48 bits do not match, then the 64 bits shall be
> carried
> inline." Similarly for the second. As it is, it takes a while to figure
> out
> what it means.

We modified the two paragraphs as per your suggestion.

> Nits/editorial comments: Do fix the reference nits noted by the nits tool;
> they
> appear to be simple typos.

Done!

Cheers,

Carles (on behalf of the authors)