[lp-wan] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc-21: (with COMMENT)
Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 21 August 2019 16:38 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: lp-wan@ietf.org
Delivered-To: lp-wan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEF4F120C05; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 09:38:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc@ietf.org, Pascal Thubert <pthubert@cisco.com>, Dominique Barthel <dominique.barthel@orange.com>, lpwan-chairs@ietf.org, pthubert@cisco.com, lp-wan@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.100.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Message-ID: <156640549570.25789.16705284903612021914.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 09:38:15 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lp-wan/McvBpTwtB0lRCNrcXjhAxxFWqy8>
Subject: [lp-wan] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc-21: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lp-wan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "Low-Power Wide Area Networking \(LP-WAN\), also known as LPWA or Low-Rate WAN \(LR-WAN\)" <lp-wan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lp-wan>, <mailto:lp-wan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lp-wan/>
List-Post: <mailto:lp-wan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lp-wan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan>, <mailto:lp-wan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 16:38:16 -0000
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc-21: 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-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the well-written document! A few quick comments: 1) This text on ECN in sec 10.3: " ECN functionality depends on both bits of the ECN field, which are the 2 LSBs of this field, hence sending only a single LSB of this field is NOT RECOMMENDED." probably belongs in section 10.2 instead, no? 2) If I understand the protocol correctly, I believe it should be a normative requirement that the Inactivity Timer is always larger than the Retransmission Timer? Related to this, Appendix F says: "The initial value of the Inactivity timer is expected to be greater than that of the Retransmission timer, in order to make sure that a (buffered) SCHC Fragment to be retransmitted can find an opportunity for that transmission. One exception to this recommendation is the special case of the All-1 SCHC Fragment transmission." I think this section should be moved into the body of the document. Further, if you need a different timer value for the All-1 SCHC Fragment, you should give this timer a distinct name and value. 3) I also agree with Alvaro that appendix E should be moved into the body of the document if you intent to specify something normatively there. 4) Editorial in Sec 10.11: "...with a strength that is identical or better to the UDP checksum." Not sure what you mean by "better"...? 5) I wondering if you want to say maybe something about pacing out different fragments (mostly when a window is used). I know that any recommendation would be technology dependent but in some cases sending a burst of packets e.g. could overload some network queues; therefore it could be good to at least mention it...? 6) Without having thought too hard about it: is it possible with this compression scheme to specify a rule that increases a counter/sequence number by 1 (given the initial value is known)? Would maybe be nice to say something about this in the document...
- [lp-wan] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-… Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker
- Re: [lp-wan] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on dr… dominique.barthel