[6lo] Comments on draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-08

"Liubing (Remy)" <remy.liubing@huawei.com> Thu, 14 November 2019 02:12 UTC

Return-Path: <remy.liubing@huawei.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 5BD3B1200F1 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 18:12:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 cmJeViZvL2jc for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 18:12:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C15C912006B for <6lo@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 18:12:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 7550E48D5FEE3E65C9BC for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 02:12:37 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from lhreml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.54) by lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 02:12:36 +0000
Received: from lhreml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.54) by lhreml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.54) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 02:12:36 +0000
Received: from DGGEMM423-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.198.40) by lhreml705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.54) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 02:12:36 +0000
Received: from DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.87]) by dggemm423-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.198.40]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 10:12:29 +0800
From: "Liubing (Remy)" <remy.liubing@huawei.com>
To: =?ks_c_5601-1987?B?yKu/67HZ?= <yghong@etri.re.kr>
CC: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-08
Thread-Index: AdWajrJkqaI4SmjMR8uVb0hY63EmDw==
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 02:12:29 +0000
Message-ID: <BB09947B5326FE42BA3918FA28765C2E010D344F@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.130.180.83]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ks_c_5601-1987"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/_Q49i9tjiOqgZkrxaBKs6ffgzxY>
Subject: [6lo] Comments on draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-08
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, 14 Nov 2019 02:12:40 -0000

Hello Yong-Geun,

I've reviewed the latest version of the draft, and it looks great.

I have some editorial comments for your consideration:

-  Considering the current outline, the chapter 4 seems to be incomplete, because it covers only the PLCs. With the title "6lo Deployment Scenarios", it is expected to cover other low power technologies as well. Another solution could be, moving the current text to PLC related sections, e.g. the section 3.6 or the section 6.6.

-  In the chapter 5, for the bullet "Mesh or L3 routing", it would be better to have an example for mesh routing at L2, e.g. LOADng in G3 plc. 

Thanks again for your great efforts on the draft.

Best regards,
Remy