Re: [6lo] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Dear Benjamin

Many thanks for your  review this time again!

I answered the track question separately (with you and Mirja), this is a conscious discussion that was debated with Suresh in Singapore, we decided for STD track and made the changes accordingly.

Let's address the DISCUSS first, more tomorrow on the COMMENTs

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I think we need to be more explicit (whether inline or by reference) about
> what "Secure joining and the Link-Layer security that it sets up"
> (Section 7) entails in terms of ensuring that access to the LLN is only available
> to authenticated and authorized entities.  It might be worth doing so as
> explicit assumptions or an applicability statement early in the document
> (e.g., the Introduction).

For one thing, in https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-05.txt text was moved that makes this unreadable.

Changed the first paragraph of the intro to:
"
   The original 6LoWPAN fragmentation is defined in [RFC4944] for use
   over a single Layer 3 hop, though possibly multiple Layer 2 hops in a
   mesh-under network, and was not modified by the [RFC6282] update.
   6LoWPAN operations including fragmentation depend on a Link-Layer
   security that prevents any rogue access to the network.
"
 
> 
> Also, in Section 2.3 we refer to the datagram_tag plus layer-2 sender address
> as being "a globally unique identifier for the datagram", but I think this can
> only hold within some time-bounded window (e.g., the lifetime of the
> packet), since the tag space is finite and reuse somewhat inevitable.

This is certainly correct was better make it explicit. What about:
"
   datagram_tag:  An identifier of a datagram that is locally unique to
      the Layer 2 sender.  Associated with the MAC address of the
      sender, this becomes a globally unique identifier for the datagram
      within the duration of its transmission.

"

Please let me know if that addresses your DISCUSS so I can move on with the COMMENTS

Many thanks again!

Pascal