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

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Thu, 20 February 2020 19:14 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.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 D28D212008D; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:14:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 wgLWOkyM78Cl; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:14:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 17942120044; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:14:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 01KJEPhG022987 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 20 Feb 2020 14:14:27 -0500
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:14:24 -0800
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=C9ric?= Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, carlesgo@entel.upc.edu, draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment@ietf.org, 6lo@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200220191424.GI97652@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <158211922582.23771.13449460445832408679.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <158211922582.23771.13449460445832408679.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/tYj-AFgCKB2k1G5RJ1W0tYCytko>
Subject: Re: [6lo] =?iso-8859-1?q?=C9ric_Vyncke=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-iet?= =?iso-8859-1?q?f-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, 20 Feb 2020 19:14:38 -0000

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 05:33:45AM -0800, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker wrote:
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-12: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you for the work put into this document. It is very easy to read.
> 
> Nevertheless, please find below some non-blocking COMMENTs (and I would
> appreciate a response from the authors) and NITS.
> 
> 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.
> 
> I hope that this helps to improve the document,
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -éric
> 
> == 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" ;-)
> 
> -- 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).
> 
> -- Section 6 --
> The "no per-fragment routing" can also be seen as an advantage as it forces all
> fragments to be in order.

I think that still requires cooperation from all intermediate nodes,
absent some requirement for them to clear buffers in FIFO order.

-Ben