Re: [6lo] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-6lo-plc
Carles Gomez Montenegro <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu> Tue, 27 October 2020 13:43 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 3CC2F3A0D44; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 06:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 jwLyVy8o2NKV; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 06:43:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from violet.upc.es (violet.upc.es [147.83.2.51]) (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 C5C4F3A0D72; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 06:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from entelserver.upc.edu (entelserver.upc.es [147.83.39.4]) by violet.upc.es (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id 09RDhEnF033093; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 14:43:14 +0100
Received: from webmail.entel.upc.edu (webmail.entel.upc.edu [147.83.39.6]) by entelserver.upc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FF341D53C1; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 14:43:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from 10.192.137.220 by webmail.entel.upc.edu with HTTP; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 14:43:14 +0100
Message-ID: <33cb7273031c35e9b1ec6041f6b65e95.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <BB09947B5326FE42BA3918FA28765C2E013E5AB2@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <BB09947B5326FE42BA3918FA28765C2E013E5AB2@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 14:43:14 +0100
From: Carles Gomez Montenegro <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>
To: "Liubing (Remy)" <remy.liubing@huawei.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-6lo-plc@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6lo-plc@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <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 violet
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Delayed for 100:47:18 by milter-greylist-4.3.9 (violet.upc.es [147.83.2.51]); Tue, 27 Oct 2020 14:43:16 +0100 (CET)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/i_vcElnX717XJxbQ-61GCP_sgQo>
Subject: Re: [6lo] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-6lo-plc
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: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 13:43:57 -0000
Hello Remy, Thanks for your response. I have reviewed your response to my 3rd comment below. Your proposed new text looks good to me. Thanks, Carles > Hello Carles, > > I'm really sorry for this late reply. > > It seems that we have reached consensus on 4 of the 5 comments. Please > find my new response to your 3rd comment below. > > Thank you very much for reviewing. > > Best regards, > > Remy > -----ÓʼþÔ¼þ----- > ·¢¼þÈË: Carles Gomez Montenegro [mailto:carlesgo@entel.upc.edu] > ·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2020Äê9ÔÂ2ÈÕ 17:54 > ÊÕ¼þÈË: Liubing (Remy) <remy.liubing@huawei.com> > ³ËÍ: draft-ietf-6lo-plc@ietf.org; 6lo@ietf.org > Ö÷Ìâ: Re: [6lo] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-6lo-plc > > Hello Remy, > > First of all, sorry for the late response. > > Thanks for taking my comments into consideration. > > Please find below my inline responses (labeled [Carles]): > >> Hello Carles, >> >> Thank you very much for your detailed review. > > [Carles] You are welcome! > >> We accept most of your suggestions. > > [Carles] Thanks! > >> Meanwhile, items that need further >> discussion are posted below. >> >> 1. This specification provides a brief overview of PLC technologies. >> Some of them have LLN characteristics, i.e. limited power >> >> Just a weak suggestion: LLN is a recognized term in many domains. >> Nevertheless, feel free to consider using "Constrained-Node Network >> (CNN) (see RFC 7228). >> [Remy] Maybe LLN is a better choice since it is used in many RFCs in >> IOT domain as well. Thank you for your suggestion though. > > [Carles] Feel free to use the term that you prefer. > >> 2. RPL (Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) [RFC6550] >> is a layer 3 routing protocol. AODV-RPL >> [I-D.ietf-roll-aodv-rpl] >> updates RPL to include reactive, point-to-point, and asymmetric >> routing. IEEE 1901.2 specifies Information Elements (IEs) with >> MAC layer metrics, which can be provided to L3 routing protocol >> for parent selection. For IPv6-addressable PLC networks, a >> layer-3 routing protocol such as RPL and/or AODV-RPL SHOULD be >> supported in the standard. >> >> Why "SHOULD"? And if "SHOULD" is the right term here, perhaps add >> some clarification on reasons or circumstances motivating using a >> protocol different from RPL and/or AODV-RPL? >> [Remy] Yes, this sentence makes people confused. The reason why >> "SHOULD" >> is used is that we have other options like L2-routing and LOADng. But >> this sentence looks redundant now, because the whole section is >> talking about the three options. Do you think it is OK to remove this >> sentence? > > [Carles] Yes, I agree to remove this sentence. > >> 3. IEEE 1901.1 supports 12-bit and 48-bit addresses. Header >> compression over IEEE 1901.1 will need some form of adaptation, since >> RFC 6282 refers to 16-bit and 64-bit addresses. >> [Remy] Yes, we need adaptation. How to generate IID from 12-bit >> (1901.1), 16-bit (G.9903 and 1901.2) and 48-bit address is defined in >> section 4.1 (Stateless Address Autoconfiguration). And using the same >> method, the original IPv6 address can be recovered from the L2 >> address. Thus that's where the adaptation is defined. It may be not >> explicit enough. Actually, the encoding format defined in RFC6282 >> applies to all the PLC technologies mentioned in this draft. The only >> difference is: for 1901.1, when the SAM or DAM in RFC6282 is set to 2, >> it means the source or destination IPv6 address is compressed to 12 bits >> instead of 16bits. > > [Carles] In my opinion, adding some more explicit note would be helpful. > [Remy] I propose to add the following specification: > For IEEE 1901.2 and G.9903, the IP header compression follows the > instruction in [RFC6282]. However, additional adaptation MUST be > considered for IEEE 1901.1, since it has a short address of 12 bits > instead of 16 bits. The only modification is the semantics of the "Source > Address Mode" when set as "10" in the section 3.1 of [RFC6282], which is > illustrated as following. > > SAM: Source Address Mode: > If SAC=0: Stateless compression > > 10: 12 bits. The first 116 bits of the address are elided. The > value of the first 64 bits is the link-local prefix padded with > zeros. The following 64 bits are 0000:00ff:fe00:0XXX, where > XXX are the 12 bits carried in-line. > > If SAC=1: stateful context-based compression > > 10: 12 bits. The address is derived using context information and > the 12 bits carried in-line. Bits covered by context > information are always used. Any IID bits not covered by > context information are taken directly from their corresponding > bits in the 12-bit to IID mapping given by 0000:00ff:fe00:0XXX, > where XXX are the 12 bits carried inline. Any remaining bits > are zero. > >> 4. PAN Coordinator (PANC) and PAN Device. The PANC is the primary >> coordinator of the PLC subnet and can be seen as a master node; PAN >> Devices are typically PLC meters and sensors. The PANC also serves >> as the Routing Registrar for proxy registration and DAD procedures, >> making use of the updated registration procedures in [RFC8505]. >> IPv6 >> over PLC networks are built as tree, mesh or star according to the >> use cases. Every network requires at least one PANC to communicate >> with each PAN Device. >> >> The last sentence was unclear. Who/What communicates with each PAN >> Device? >> [Remy] We meant "the PANC communicates with the PAN devices". We try >> to >> rephrase: Generally, each PLC network has one PANC. In some cases, the >> PLC network can have alternate coordinators to replace the PANC when >> the PANC leaves the network for some reason. > > [Carles] Your new proposed text looks good to me. > >> 5. What is the subnet model for the scenarios illustrated in this >> section? >> For example, is the "PLC subnet" a multilink subnet? Is each link in >> the "PLC subnet" a subnet? >> [Remy] It is a multilink subnet, instead of "each link is a subnet". > > [Carles] Thanks. Please add some text on this feature to the document. > > Best regards, > > Carles > > >> Best regards, >> Remy > > >
- [6lo] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-6lo-plc Carles Gomez Montenegro
- Re: [6lo] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-6lo-plc Liubing (Remy)
- Re: [6lo] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-6lo-plc Carles Gomez Montenegro
- Re: [6lo] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-6lo-plc Liubing (Remy)
- Re: [6lo] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-6lo-plc Carles Gomez Montenegro
- Re: [6lo] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-6lo-plc Kerry Lynn
- [6lo] 答复: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-6lo-plc Liubing (Remy)