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

[Rahul Jadhav <[e-mail]>]

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 <
[e-mail]> 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
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
> >
>
>
>