[6lo] Comments on draft-kelsey-6lo-mesh-link-establishment-00

<yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp> Fri, 02 October 2015 00:33 UTC

Return-Path: <yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E789C1A9105 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 17:33:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=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 dRLdDrMMn6-L for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 17:33:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imx2.toshiba.co.jp (imx2.toshiba.co.jp [106.186.93.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AABC51A90FA for <6lo@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 17:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tsbmgw-mgw02.tsbmgw-mgw02.toshiba.co.jp ([133.199.200.50]) by imx2.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id t920XWOs000434 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <6lo@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:33:32 +0900 (JST)
Received: from tsbmgw-mgw02 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tsbmgw-mgw02.tsbmgw-mgw02.toshiba.co.jp (8.13.8/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t920XVZW014307 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:33:31 +0900
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by tsbmgw-mgw02 (JAMES SMTP Server 2.3.1) with SMTP ID 957 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:33:31 +0900 (JST)
Received: from arc1.toshiba.co.jp ([133.199.194.235]) by tsbmgw-mgw02.tsbmgw-mgw02.toshiba.co.jp (8.13.8/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t920XVMg014201 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:33:31 +0900
Received: (from root@localhost) by arc1.toshiba.co.jp id t920XVXU012303 for 6lo@ietf.org; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:33:31 +0900 (JST)
Received: from ovp2.toshiba.co.jp [133.199.192.144] by arc1.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id KAA12289; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:33:30 +0900
Received: from mx11.toshiba.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ovp2.toshiba.co.jp with ESMTP id t920XT98001265 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:33:29 +0900 (JST)
Received: from TGXML207.toshiba.local by toshiba.co.jp id t920XTq1003420; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:33:29 +0900 (JST)
Received: from TGXML210.toshiba.local ([169.254.4.120]) by TGXML207.toshiba.local ([133.199.70.16]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:33:29 +0900
From: yoshihiro.ohba@toshiba.co.jp
To: 6lo@ietf.org
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-kelsey-6lo-mesh-link-establishment-00
Thread-Index: AdD8qUsbEdXYnMEBQUG8H3NloPNhLQ==
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 00:33:28 +0000
Message-ID: <674F70E5F2BE564CB06B6901FD3DD78B29E82080@TGXML210.toshiba.local>
Accept-Language: ja-JP, en-US
Content-Language: ja-JP
x-originating-ip: [133.120.176.172]
msscp.transfermailtomossagent: 103
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/vgbvU7I61pyVo2taHgrU-SYIosQ>
Subject: [6lo] Comments on draft-kelsey-6lo-mesh-link-establishment-00
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 00:33:37 -0000

Here is my review comments on MLE draft.

----

Section 1:

“
   MLE was developed as part of the ZigBee IP networking standard
   [ZigBeeIP].  This document describes the protocol as it was used in
   that standard.
“

I do not think this paragraph is needed since the published ZigBee IP specification references an older version of MLE draft.   Especially the 2nd sentence prevents us from updating the protocol for usages other than ZigBee IP. 

Section 7:

The length of the TLV Length field is currently one octet, allowing up to 255 bytes for Value field.  However, an MLE extension defined in draft-ohba-6lo-mle-hip-dex needs more than 255 bytes for Value field.  One case is to carry HIP DEX certificates in MLE message.  Another case is to carry a certificate revocation list in MLE.  Therefore, the length of TLV Length should be at least 2-octet for longer Value fields.

Section 7.1:

“
   The Link-layer Frame Counter TLV (TLV Type 5) has a Value containing
   the sender's current outgoing link-layer Frame Counter, encoded as an
   N-byte unsigned integer.  For 802.15.4 this is a 4-byte value.
“

The last sentence is inaccurate since IEEE 802.15.4e-2012 also supports 5-octet Frame Counter.

Section 7.7 :

“
   A node that does not have a link configured to a neighbor but
   receives a Link Quality TLV from that neighbor with the node’s O flag
   set to "1" SHOULD send an MLE message with a Link Quality TLV with
   that neighbor’s I bit set to "0".
“

In this case, the Link Quality TLV with that neighbor’s I bit set to “0” should also have the O bit set to “0” since the sending node of this TLV does not have the link configured to the neighbor.

It is also suggested to add a reference to Section 12 for detailed usage of I bit and O bit.

Section 7.8:

“
  Delay               The delay before setting the parameter, in
                       milliseconds.  This is a four-byte unsigned
                       integer.  Having a delay gives time for the new
                       value to propagate throughout the network.  It
                       may also be used for limiting the time a
                       particular parameter setting is in use, by
                       including two different values for a single
                       parameter, with two different delays.
“

When two Network Parameter TLVs of the same Parameter ID with different Delay values are carried in a single message, how to distinguish the two different types of delays, i.e., the delay before setting the parameter, and the delay for limiting the time the parameter is in use?

“
   The defined Network Parameters are:

   0    Channel

   1    PAN ID

   2    Permit Joining

   3    Beacon Payload
“

Please add description or references to show how each network parameter (Channel, PAN ID, Permit Joining, Beacon Payload) is encoded into the Value field.

Section 7.9:

“
   The MLE Frame Counter TLV (TLV Type 8) has a Value containing the
   sender's current outgoing MLE Frame Counter, encoded as an 32-bit
   unsigned integer.
“

Since IEEE 802.15.4e-2012 supports 5-octet frame counter in addition to 4-octet frame counter, it is suggested to also support 5-octet MLE frame counter.  Note that draft-ohba-6lo-mle-hip-dex mandates use of 5-octet MLE Frame Counter.  

---

Best Regards,
Yoshihiro Ohba