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

"Carles Gomez Montenegro" <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu> Sat, 14 December 2019 19:18 UTC

Return-Path: <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>
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 8A9451200C4 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 11:18:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.196
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.196 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 Ki0RKxNviqys for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 11:18:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dash.upc.es (dash.upc.es [147.83.2.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D129B120046 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 11:18:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from entelserver.upc.edu (entelserver.upc.es [147.83.39.4]) by dash.upc.es (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id xBEJIJMD023930; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 20:18:19 +0100
Received: from webmail.entel.upc.edu (webmail.entel.upc.edu [147.83.39.6]) by entelserver.upc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9811D1D53C1; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 20:18:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from 83.37.3.185 by webmail.entel.upc.edu with HTTP; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 20:18:19 +0100
Message-ID: <66b0bcd40aba76ffd90dcf219e4ac1b1.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <CAO0Djp2oCi7SGuRaxLnesJ3X1_HPGvPTz+=LbFcZgTNNW=p-xg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO0Djp2Of3ERSvZoHvPosDvp1D6jGhKa4UU64uaQ5AX0a12dpA@mail.gmail.com> <1e105105832b45342a54be08c3c9df90.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu> <CAO0Djp2oCi7SGuRaxLnesJ3X1_HPGvPTz+=LbFcZgTNNW=p-xg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 20:18:19 +0100
From: "Carles Gomez Montenegro" <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>
To: "Rahul Jadhav" <rahul.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: "lo" <6lo@ietf.org>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21-1.fc14
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.100.3 at dash
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: ACL matched, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.3.9 (dash.upc.es [147.83.2.50]); Sat, 14 Dec 2019 20:18:20 +0100 (CET)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/iYvkqUhGaV2PHRQZ7sygQFL8Nv4>
Subject: Re: [6lo] review of 6lo-blemesh
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: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 19:18:31 -0000

Hi Rahul,

Many thanks for your last review!

We just submitted -07, which is intended to incorporate your last round of
comments.

Should you have further comments, please do not hesitate to let us know.

Cheers,

Carles




> 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 <
> carlesgo@entel.upc.edu> 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
>> > 6lo@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>