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

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

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