[6lo] review of 6lo use cases draft

<dominique.barthel@orange.com> Mon, 24 February 2020 08:15 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 9846F3A0867; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 00:15:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=orange.com
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 BcAmzFZJhIXu; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 00:15:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.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 D17593A0860; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 00:15:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfedar04.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.6]) by opfedar27.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 48Qvyc22G2z2xxd; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 09:15:52 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=orange.com; s=ORANGE001; t=1582532152; bh=qxM+CnF1IR1k76Luefy3t1M32bcZipOdUYE7ubDOgic=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=YPbfWZQ9kpVdDx1wbU2Lj4MlqUGZZUZPKDvUolR6+fy12cQMLZT09srbgJHYWWWZl 25bef3kxLYEAyy0F7/YH6zVeWV03uL/82DOst/Nd0oBrWFUYinY7HQ7tpMaLgXs4qC wk4W9beRTZDNLjmGznsbYdT2cPD24s+f77/0WohGlFt6sjP75VnJdc5eFmKmRDxtwt csoKVGkGRCiWJ300kdRgzbcNK0Vi2GHqE1R+YKRr5OWPvcq5ewrIC20VQLWEsx5z5n fgZTOLDFqKvCtWkHvXE8d2fvp8i0hhPuctjTr911lZGCO1xKYrAT6qYnQUOYUPOR3k Fhe9JxrB1n3fA==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.82]) by opfedar04.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 48Qvyc177Jz1xq5; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 09:15:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCAUBM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::d42b:2e80:86c2:5905]) by OPEXCAUBM5E.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 09:15:51 +0100
From: <dominique.barthel@orange.com>
To: "draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases@ietf.org>
CC: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: review of 6lo use cases draft
Thread-Index: AQHV6uqg7exkT7m9o0yS2lZ60HqB5Q==
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 08:15:51 +0000
Message-ID: <23993_1582532152_5E538638_23993_304_12_DA7944B3.70DB2%dominique.barthel@orange.com>
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: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DA7944B370DB2dominiquebarthelorangecom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/RJCK4AJHyDhNFCT2oNqPl09dAc4>
Subject: [6lo] review of 6lo use cases draft
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: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 08:15:59 -0000

Hello all,

I have read https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-08 .
I found it easy to read and informative.
Here are a few comments for your consideration:

  *   I don't think there should be any RFC2116 language in this draft, since it describes use cases. I spotted MAY and SHOULD in Sections 1 and 5.
  *   The bullet list at the end of section 1 is unbalanced: 2 items are full sentences, 2 are just nominal groups
  *   Section 3.6 PLC: "wired technologies are more susceptible to cause interference". More than what technologies? Since wires are meant to guide energy, I would say that wired technologies cause less interference to the radio medium than wireless technologies, all other things being equal.
  *   Section 3.7 "In above clauses, various 6lo Link layer technologies and a possible candidate are described". Unclear which ones are the genuine 6lo technologies, which one is the possible candidate? Does it matter that one is only  "candidate"?
  *   Section 3.7 "The following table shows that dominant paramters of each use case corresponding to the 6lo link layer technology". Incorrect sentence.
  *   Table 2: looks like a mixture of technologies and applications. E.g. latency requirement = low for DECT-ULE, but only true for smart-metering, not for some other DECT-ULE use cases (home automation). Providing only one example of usage is a mis-representation of the technology.
  *   In what respect are section 4 and 6 different? They both have descriptions of technology and use cases. Could they be merged?
  *   Section 10.1, Normative References. I wonder if this draft, being a use case description, should have any normative reference at all (except maybe for RFC2119). I'm not sure, seek advice.

Best regards

Dominique

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.