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

"Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com> Thu, 05 March 2020 16:22 UTC

Return-Path: <evyncke@cisco.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 0A2CA3A1726; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 08:22:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=KUPth5LX; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=K/IERUcF
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 xN6GhGTbKTci; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 08:22:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 436F83A172A; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 08:22:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5366; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1583425333; x=1584634933; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=jzqDl+o02YSFGtlKxx98UnlFIOlClQOZzl2hJ1UAtAs=; b=KUPth5LX2C31TzUQ1aiHsqqVCGRAGAmirvSeZcMx0l7/Lq2/5c+HJw5r WZEFAWC8QrqDPSq2EjWmMUCA7Ew/RwaS/qdmYJsp2OzdcK4AiDl8JKpNR 9cDHOY9ZI45UruuWJJuG/lFYjuSHctJjY10RBGqvhMSbFVKsu6ONI1M8u Y=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3A/DUNkRb57b/gPVzDNRH+jFP/LSx94ef9IxIV55?= =?us-ascii?q?w7irlHbqWk+dH4MVfC4el20gebRp3VvvRDjeee87vtX2AN+96giDgDa9QNMn?= =?us-ascii?q?1NksAKh0olCc+BB1f8KavncT08F8dPfFRk5Hq8d0NSHZW2ag=3D=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CrBQATJmFe/4sNJK1lHAEBAQEBBwE?= =?us-ascii?q?BEQEEBAEBgXuBVFAFbFggBAsqhBWDRgOKaoI6JZgVglIDVAkBAQEMAQEjCgI?= =?us-ascii?q?EAQGEQwIXgXckOBMCAwEBCwEBBQEBAQIBBQRthVYMhWMBAQEBAgESEREMAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?qCgMBCwQCAQgRAwECAwImAgICMBUFAwgCBAENBSKDBAGCSgMOIAEOmksCgTm?= =?us-ascii?q?IYnWBMoJ/AQEFgTMCg2kYggwDBoEOKoUhhwYagUE/gREnDBSCTT6CZAICGoF?= =?us-ascii?q?JgxEygiyNYRKCdZ5NcAqCPI0fiUcclmeETYNMiymbTQIEAgQFAg4BAQWBaSK?= =?us-ascii?q?BWHAVZQGCQVAYDY4dOIM7hRSFQXSBKY1cAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.70,518,1574121600"; d="scan'208";a="442881737"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 05 Mar 2020 16:22:12 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (xch-aln-003.cisco.com [173.36.7.13]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 025GMCVQ000946 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 5 Mar 2020 16:22:12 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) by XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (173.36.7.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 10:22:12 -0600
Received: from xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) by xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 10:22:11 -0600
Received: from NAM10-BN7-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 11:22:11 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; =?utf-8?q?b=3DeF8Vd7hlyepwGPMEP3/Ha1WeNnnfjIsQ+4nEstBWfspcTj5lkD8069qO7l+MB?= =?utf-8?q?IqPHJ3Ggh4Quzk1NXfRdFNLDmYX7D7AzTWq9svPyfCvKjenv+qwNjoOAxbDz5eeFl?= =?utf-8?q?6mz/ToSigqllOvvZyDVN/sucKRClkVo0zpbfCyKD02sx6+NoXt3XZKCpOSl41zbKw?= =?utf-8?q?jOY5TCAlljzwZcC/iKDPN9xGQUPm/JrT8NzWUe1ZE0guC+FWbNRIdjs4YjWSZe+GS?= =?utf-8?q?7T/ppNyiacxB4AmnDV7/PHnPEi3iijH0VqJs1nd+MoWji4DHDDh5kVcU2ZMQAZhOV?= =?utf-8?q?Ov5M8rl+wfUUYaSqAUILQ=3D=3D?=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; =?utf-8?q?h=3DFrom=3ADate=3ASubject=3AMessage-ID=3ACont?= =?utf-8?q?ent-Type=3AMIME-Version=3AX-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck=3B?= =?utf-8?q?bh=3DjzqDl+o02YSFGtlKxx98UnlFIOlClQOZzl2hJ1UAtAs=3D=3B_b=3DHUT5Uq?= =?utf-8?q?8B1Bo+wvjXjM0Me+0nUaVbJ+aIHtTZf6o63zfPmAcWFHvYKlYTf/fD9CAOpM3a6+P?= =?utf-8?q?/Ha1i1wEo76W5g9PsfklH88VpQOT5MaoOEchowWjcBFqH5nGfCT9+dCZohumm12Uk?= =?utf-8?q?9k7LLGwQSu0kldnhYDuzLPTqAgUB1mHru0bKSQHdSL+rAP/TzscSJas/2BZEmlsIN?= =?utf-8?q?PbBFXJyWIyTu6ERgs4+26M9s9f0WJTzCWp5ENLD2byBaRPAye1wTiZFO+rLKRFCU4?= =?utf-8?q?9C0AFJeLgA5IIxdL96qsRW6SshofEs4phh6vTNwUpAdeuPgNhwMZyC7sr75RrGsN3?= =?utf-8?q?OGpv0WDv1jQ=3D=3D?=
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; =?utf-8?q?h=3DFrom=3ADate=3ASubject=3AM?= =?utf-8?q?essage-ID=3AContent-Type=3AMIME-Version=3AX-MS-Exchange-SenderADC?= =?utf-8?q?heck=3B_bh=3DjzqDl+o02YSFGtlKxx98UnlFIOlClQOZzl2hJ1UAtAs=3D=3B_b?= =?utf-8?q?=3DK/IERUcFUwKuj4yn/IoD3qWcU1rHTPm1+5wwrIQiTKfovs4W3XQO64aqIrpjd0?= =?utf-8?q?qiM3AwNL54izmRXwORJsVJpy6JvWQCyY89eQ9SHLjibg8rAdk0vc90/qQ9S3HS3lw?= =?utf-8?q?mXgkYQMPOQQakKGOfUGG8ljn1npxqVU54IUgvg72YSXA=3D?=
Received: from DM5PR11MB1753.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:3:10d::13) by DM5PR11MB1465.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:4:7::17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2772.18; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 16:22:10 +0000
Received: from DM5PR11MB1753.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::680d:e22e:72d5:67ca]) by DM5PR11MB1753.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::680d:e22e:72d5:67ca%3]) with mapi id 15.20.2772.019; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 16:22:10 +0000
From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "6lo-chairs@ietf.org" <6lo-chairs@ietf.org>, "carlesgo@entel.upc.edu" <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>, "draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [6lo] =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-iet?= =?utf-8?q?f-6lo-minimal-fragment-12=3A?= (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHV5ylCpvIFXga4vkSBT24hxngl2qg6JG1ggAAyc4A=
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 16:22:10 +0000
Message-ID: <B0F00BC8-EE6C-44D1-9886-6CB58BACB8A8@cisco.com>
References: <158211922582.23771.13449460445832408679.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> =?utf-8?q?=3CMN2PR11MB3565A4B13595A14AF27E3AF8D8E20=40MN2PR11MB3565=2Enampr?= =?utf-8?q?d11=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?=
In-Reply-To: =?utf-8?q?=3CMN2PR11MB3565A4B13595A14AF27E3AF8D8E20=40MN2PR11MB?= =?utf-8?q?3565=2Enamprd11=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?=
Accept-Language: fr-BE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.22.0.200209
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=evyncke@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c1:36:bd:6d37:e06a:deff]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: d8ca2626-6cc7-4864-3849-08d7c1215b80
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR11MB1465:
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: =?utf-8?q?=3CDM5PR11MB1465C66CEC3BDC496ECCB0DCA9E?= =?utf-8?q?20=40DM5PR11MB1465=2Enamprd11=2Eprod=2Eoutlook=2Ecom=3E?=
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 03333C607F
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; =?utf-8?q?SFS=3A=2810009020=29=284636?= =?utf-8?b?MDA5KSgzOTg2MDQwMDAwMikoMzc2MDAyKSgzNDYwMDIpKDM5NjAwMykoMzY2?= =?utf-8?b?MDA0KSgxMzYwMDMpKDE4OTAwMykoMTk5MDA0KSg4MTE2NjAwNikoNjY0NzYwMDcp?= =?utf-8?q?=2866946007=29=286512007=29=288936002=29=2833656002=29=2881156014?= =?utf-8?b?KSg1NjYwMzAwMDAyKSg2NjQ0NjAwOCkoNjQ3NTYwMDgpKDY2NTU2MDA4KSg4?= =?utf-8?q?6362001=29=284326008=29=286486002=29=2876116006=29=2891956017=29?= =?utf-8?q?=2871200400001=29=2853546011=29=2836756003=29=286506007=29=281860?= =?utf-8?b?MDMpKDU0OTA2MDAzKSgyOTA2MDAyKSg5NjYwMDUpKDMxNjAwMikoMTEwMTM2?= =?utf-8?q?005=29=28224303003=29=282616005=29=28478600001=29=3B?= DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM5PR11MB1465; H:DM5PR11MB1753.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: =?utf-8?q?uFs4jlW6KtrXQ6ZKbcKH4Dy7NHwMaLV?= =?utf-8?q?96thsQrh/9Br0bVEdYqUQHu4eFmJ5E9n8veOAMXIq31fTQJ/hNazstWlGMBoD2gGa?= =?utf-8?q?Knl1bThRT+4njuhfgH0G0VoJT/MCLbRmrZvk+1VepObXM2e7FAP7+Cxe3mXLqmjs3?= =?utf-8?q?qZH/DadbS7o8xVY2XzJdrjiO11urceCd0wzxvkIvWKhMZcXdkwXlz0CFTw6uZzzB8?= =?utf-8?q?xoSwsuA2wc1Qfjx+xBNl+CSFCKYyRPpqDr/ztbuQz0WdRuAXkmX4BCyZxND/LQm/o?= =?utf-8?q?yTpTEz99e/lj3Xg0apcLl41HFUsMif7pbTHWpw/6cJZ2/kOvA3Y29OWCbJHdcAVkN?= =?utf-8?q?o/tDBTY93HfAxsTutDRmeUI0N9QedY6RxeZhbQxfZG+kublftNCWrWKrVmQFnASZ9?= =?utf-8?q?XFIIg12wfDfVGkI4uF1UIKG/sAY2hDT/Bz+D/eTZb4CUZullphw3Ri32APEhObjCi?= =?utf-8?q?aKwPDP+VpOMM8+53ADDWdxc/yx1NWRcsNBmStLk5X5vXSx7g=3D=3D?=
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: =?utf-8?q?xkTfiy4zRMQ92nyRb16TMnt9d46oPG?= =?utf-8?q?E39pjNJQBEBtiYbcrdPkoJFWUFaM/aEfBwE9FckRWuWzHexQbqVsFmhCl4fkVoSIM?= =?utf-8?q?h5SFElM7w7DZOnil9FBaA18zOs0LO257Dl2PBz6DxeYQUshsHu1w7SfNx5NlBuYYg?= =?utf-8?q?U1/Icip9qBZOutBrQq1fS4FrgmKdRxPvFSgDOmhj7qTmlegdp/F7bw=3D=3D?=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <FAE2EA162E67FB4D963559410ACFE6A0@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: d8ca2626-6cc7-4864-3849-08d7c1215b80
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Mar 2020 16:22:10.7936 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: =?utf-8?q?y0kS6I4LFlhlL7wEw00JA?= =?utf-8?q?l5iUmuOhdoKdPz6eQUfr0wVCxWR//8cwhflUxSnyk+8hy54cgBnyv2iVP2ahM/JpQ?= =?utf-8?q?=3D=3D?=
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR11MB1465
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.13, xch-aln-003.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-6.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/ZafL90TQ0dIrtuFz4RBXbWgop6w>
Subject: Re: [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
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: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 16:22:16 -0000

Thank you Pascal for addressing my COMMENTs

__

-éric

-----Original Message-----
From: Pascal Thubert <pthubert@cisco.com>
Date: Thursday, 5 March 2020 at 17:02
To: Eric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>om>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: "6lo-chairs@ietf.org" <6lo-chairs@ietf.org>rg>, "carlesgo@entel.upc.edu" <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>du>, "draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment@ietf.org>rg>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [6lo] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-12: (with COMMENT)

    Hello Eric:
    
    Many thanks for your review and time : )
    
    You and Ben has similar concerns and I published 13 to try to address both. 
    I compiled the proposed changes in an early publication https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-13  
    
    
    Let's see below for the details:
    
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > COMMENT:
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > 
    
    
    
    > 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.
    > 
    
    Yes, the first comment applies here too:
    
    > -- Section 4.2 and Section 7.1 --
    > Should default values for the inter-frame gap be given ?
    
    This is related to a point in Ben's review. It's really dependent on the MAC technology, PHY speed, number of retries (channel occupancy) , and application. 
    
    Quoting myself (he he)
    
    We never know when the next hop will send, it may be busy with a queue of other packets. So there's always a risk unless you schedule like you could with 6TiSCH. Also a TSCH technology will protect against the hidden terminal but a single channel mesh must let the fragment go farther away. So it's like the proverbial time it takes for the canon to cool down.:"Enough time".
    
    So I cannot be more precise that: for TSCH, allow the next hop to forward; for single channel mesh, several times that because the frame must progress out of interference range.
    
    "Enough time" can be expressed as what's needed for a packet to  " progress beyond the next hop and beyond the interference domain before the next shows up.  "
     Is that OK?
    
    
    
    > == 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" ;-)
    
    Let's go for Datagram_Tag and Link-Layer address in both docs?
    
    
    > 
    > -- 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).
    
    True, made the change
    
    
    > 
    > -- Section 6 --
    > The "no per-fragment routing" can also be seen as an advantage as it forces all
    > fragments to be in order.
    
    See my reply to you and Ben, the order is not really important in general though it plays a role in the recovery because the retries are in order.
    
    > 
    > == NITS ==
    > 
    > Is the case in "Link-Layer" correct? I am a non native speaker but I would have
    > used "link-layer".
    
    I have no idea : ) I'm used to uppercasing because of the SLLAO so I do it all the time.
    I do not mind at all changing all. Maybe the RFC editor knows better?*Gain, many thanks Eric!
    
    Pascal