Re: [6lo] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-14: (with COMMENT)

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

Hello again Benjamin:

I published -15 https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-15 with the changes.
I kept the Datagram_Tag uppercased but we can debate that with the RFC editor. 
The lowercase is used in RFC 4944.

Looking at the diffs, I found that I forgot to remove the old version of the text you changed, it is now removed in github.

Again, a great many thanks!!

I guess we're done with both fragment drafts : )

Keep safe,

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: dimanche 22 mars 2020 00:39
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; Carles Gomez <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-14:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-14: 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 addressing my Discuss (and Comment) points!
> 
> In the security considerations, perhaps "fragment 1" would be better as "first-
> fragment" to avoid questions of zero- vs. one-indexing.
> 
> 
I changed the intro to add " of the datagram" to define it more clearly in the first use:
 "
The routing decision is made on the first
   fragment of the datagram,

" 
and checked it is aligned the use of "first fragment" throughout.

The particular sentence you point out could become
"
The length of the packet is indicated in each fragment (the Datagram_Size field), so node B can allocate the buffer even if the fragment it receives first is not the first fragment.
"