Re: [Gen-art] [6tisch] Review of draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-17
Xavi Vilajosana Guillen <xvilajosana@uoc.edu> Wed, 14 December 2016 03:55 UTC
Return-Path: <xvilajosana@uoc.edu>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F01EC129462 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 19:55:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=uoc.edu
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 w4yhh122fneb for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 19:55:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x236.google.com (mail-io0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC121129543 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 19:55:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x236.google.com with SMTP id p42so20242397ioo.1 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 19:55:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uoc.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vqh8xiI2STYgYphTlA7keeLNVBPd01asmBhNzjQg2XQ=; b=CW8XALFwYavS+O28zzwqvA2CaKfHr2hERTMujdeKO/flqWnFH5WJ7VJCIMKDYvMY3N pB8eLde3LfiJSzqTszFtY91fd3VEI4Xy9x6Wj2EX3bE0nnjzTxL7CdUaYiOXLgMmqcE1 5uTpPJt1NHOafOLWi8t750Suer1lpzJTD/cDg=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vqh8xiI2STYgYphTlA7keeLNVBPd01asmBhNzjQg2XQ=; b=Pv2w+IqdVwhVh2bU+J3XtoCNoVt4iSIrnXlNnDCqNvgroHup36GqS8HQkPdGI2oSfA lB5d7r27+uGp1BoGlurLTu5ifeK9zK/nXGXdxD7AHD/sjboE4pDjnBG9018Eefq3glVL h59viDzyu2FIaqmfllLbT6g05DD7w/sYF2X0LYgktFfTLObmgCwugGB1PNwI1k08Q4GY S9t0MIE3InPoMXKEV0KKSHjQ9QcBMAQTsJ83JnCZYXWw5/XoF7D8+uiDJIoIMEusv8GA cdyNcq9d4ovpq1J770MN0nyCU4QWAhed8mOxZihTcq1Aue0yZu1VY12lP4U2SiEuS7Nx 44oQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC03Grg725GPLyV9nVBp3mJ+g70eo0qJTYujzaud7YSRs8bXCj9goA+QlSKTJusfnb2Wo0xMJABrfCNJN6Pnu
X-Received: by 10.36.14.21 with SMTP id 21mr5517596ite.79.1481687728931; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 19:55:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.34.212 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 19:55:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1055651149.121893.1481409631243.JavaMail.root@canet.uoc.es>
References: <1055651149.121893.1481409631243.JavaMail.root@canet.uoc.es>
From: Xavi Vilajosana Guillen <xvilajosana@uoc.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 04:55:28 +0100
Message-ID: <CAC9+vPj7XRKnf5WgoSr8s1u6JTt9HzCzBGetP-Vn2gALcNYu3w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1143e016c063830543964e68"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/ZkNtAU3KSQWgI6di2Jg2jRAKvM0>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, tisch <6tisch@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [6tisch] Review of draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-17
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 03:55:34 -0000
Dear Brian, I will handle the proposed changes together with other reviews I received lately. I will produce v18 as soon as possible. thanks so much for your detailed review. X 2016-12-10 23:39 GMT+01:00 Brian Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>: > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review result: Almost Ready > > Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-17 > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-17.txt > Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > Review Date: 2016-12-11 > IETF LC End Date: 2016-12-20 > IESG Telechat date: 2017-01-05 > > Summary: Almost Ready > -------- > > Comment: > -------- > > Although I found some issues, this is a good document which is mainly > very clear. I was not in a position to check IEEE802.15.4 details. > > It's too late now, but judging by the shepherd's writeup, this draft > would have been an excellent candidate for an Implementation Status > section under RFC 6982. > > Major Issues: > ------------- > > I was very confused for several pages until I went back and read this > again: > > > This specification defines operational parameters and procedures > for > > a minimal mode of operation to build a 6TiSCH Network. The > 802.15.4 > > TSCH mode, the 6LoWPAN framework, RPL [RFC6550], and its Objective > > Function 0 (OF0) [RFC6552], are used unmodified. > > Then I realised that there is some very basic information missing at > the beginning > of the Introduction. That little phrase "the 6LoWPAN framework" seems > to be the clue. > What is the 6LoWPAN framework? Which RFCs? I'm guessing it would be > RFC4944, RFC6282 > and RFC6775, but maybe not. In any case, the very first sentence of > the Introduction > really needs to be a short paragraph that explains in outline, with > citations, how a > 6TiSCH network provides IPv6 connectivity over NBMA. With that, the > rest of the document > makes sense. > > But related to that, the Abstract is confusing in the same way: > > > Abstract > > > > This document describes a minimal mode of operation for a 6TiSCH > > Network. It provides IPv6 connectivity over a Non-Broadcast > Multi- > > Access (NBMA) mesh... > > "It" is confusing since it seems to refer to this document, which > hardly > mentions IPv6 connectivity. I suggest s/It/6TiSCH/. > > As far as I know a Security Considerations section is still always > required. I understand > that this document discusses security in detail, but that doesn't > cancel the > requirement (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3552#section-5). > > Minor issues: > ------------- > > > 4.4. Timeslot Timing > ... > > The RX node needs to send the first bit after the > > SFD of the MAC acknowledgment exactly tsTxAckDelay after the end > of > > the last byte of the received packet. > > I don't understand "exactly". Nothing is exact - there is always clock > jitter. > Shouldn't there be a stated tolerance rather than "exactly"? > > > 4.5. Frame Formats > > > > The following sections detail the RECOMMENDED format of link-layer > > frames of different types. A node MAY use a different formats > (bit > > settings, etc)... > > Doesn't this create an interoperability issue for independent > implementations? > How can you mix and match implementations that use variants of the > frame format? > This seems particularly strange: > > > The IEEE802.15.4 header of BEACON, DATA and ACKNOWLEDGMENT frames > > SHOULD include the Source Address field and the Destination > Address > > field. > > How will it work if some nodes omit the addresses? > > > 4.6. Link-Layer Security > ... > > For early interoperability testing, value 36 54 69 53 43 48 20 6D > 69 > > 6E 69 6D 61 6C 31 35 ("6TiSCH minimal15") MAY be used for K1. > > Shouldn't this also say that this value MUST NOT be used in > operational networks? > > Nits: > ----- > > > 1. Introduction > > > > A 6TiSCH Network provides IPv6 connectivity... > > I would expect to see a reference to [RFC2460] right there. > > Outdated reference: draft-ietf-6lo-paging-dispatch has been published > as RFC 8025 > > _______________________________________________ > 6tisch mailing list > 6tisch@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch > -- Dr. Xavier Vilajosana Guillén Research Professor Wireless Networks Research Group Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3) Universitat Oberta de Catalunya +34 646 633 681| xvilajosana@uoc.edu | Skype: xvilajosana http://xvilajosana.org http://wine.rdi.uoc.edu/ Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss, 5. Edifici B3 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona)
- [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-17 Brian Carpenter
- Re: [Gen-art] [6tisch] Review of draft-ietf-6tisc… Xavi Vilajosana Guillen
- Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal… Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal… Thomas Watteyne
- Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Gen-art] [6tisch] Review of draft-ietf-6tisc… Tero Kivinen
- Re: [Gen-art] [6tisch] Review of draft-ietf-6tisc… Kristofer PISTER
- Re: [Gen-art] [6tisch] Review of draft-ietf-6tisc… PWK
- Re: [Gen-art] [6tisch] Review of draft-ietf-6tisc… Tero Kivinen
- Re: [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal… Brian E Carpenter