[Iotops] Re: [art] draft-ietf-iotops-7228bis-06 ietf last call Artart review

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

Hi Valery,

thank you for this review!

We created a common PR clarifying our use of MSL, motivated by the comments we got on MSL:

https://github.com/lwig-wg/terminology/pull/19/changes

We also created a PR trying to cover the improvements you specifically suggested:

https://github.com/lwig-wg/terminology/pull/24/changes

On 2026-04-23, at 14:10, Valery Smyslov via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> […]
> Nits:
> 1. The purpose of the note below Table 10 (the text in parentheses: "'Sx'
> stands for 'Size x'") is not clear to me. […]

Indeed, it is better to explain the name in the text referencing the table, which we now do.

> 2. Section 5.3
> I do not think that reference to MSL in the context of B0 networks is relevant.
> MSL is only defined for TCP and I doubt if nodes connected to B0 network will
> use TCP. In any case, MSL in TCP is only concerned with the chance for SN
> repeat after host reboots. Referring to COAP's MAX_LATENCY value (discussed in
> I-D.gomez-tiptop-coap) is more appropriate in this context, but its default
> value is 100 (and not 120 as MSL).

We added a reference to CoAP’s MAX_LATENCY, but decided to continue TCP’s MSL as the main yardstick when defining our classes, clarifying that this usage is just an example for protocol or application behavior that makes some assumption on a maximum latency in this general vicinity.

> 3. Section 5.3
> I also think that 62.5 bytes calculated here must be rounded to the full number
> of bytes (I assume that all protocols operate on byte boundary and cannot send
> say 62.3 bytes to remain "responsive" in B1 networks).

Indeed.  We use ≥ 63 now (which is still a bit too exact for this metric, but that’s what the arithmetic gives us).

You can see the changes in the context of all the IETF last-call related changes at

https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/iddiff?doc_1=draft-ietf-iotops-7228bis&url_2=https://lwig-wg.github.io/terminology/draft-ietf-iotops-7228bis.txt

Of course, IESG processing continues, so any further comments are welcome.

Grüße, Carsten