[lp-wan] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc-21: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc-21: Discuss

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/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the hard work put into this extensive document. I have a couple
of DISCUSSes and COMMENTs, all easy to be fixed except perhaps the DISCUSS
around secrion 10.7.2.

Regards,

-éric

== DISCUSS ==

-- Section 3.2 --
What is the expected behavior when the "link identifier data item" does not
match the length of this field?

-- Section 10.3 --
I am not a transport expert but I wonder whether the text "ECN functionality
depends on both bits of the ECN field,..." is at the right place? Section 10.2
would appear better to me but again I am not an transport/ECN expert.

-- Section 10.7.2 --
It is unclear to me how the gateway and the device can share the required
'shared secret' and especially the 'DAD counter' of RFC 7217... This render the
2 paragraph confusing at best and possibly impossible to implement.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the hard work put into this extensive document. I have a couple
of DISCUSSes and COMMENTs, all easy to be fixed except perhaps the DISCUSS
around secrion 10.7.2.

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 3.1 --
Is there any use of the "link identifier length data item" as in section 3.2
the link identifier has a field for its length?

-- Section 8 --
Several F/R modes are defined but none is specified as mandatory to implement.
Is it worth repeating that the 'out-of-band' initialization of devices include
the selected mode(s) ?

-- section 8 --
It is unclear to me whether multiple fragmented packets can be sent in parallel
with other fragmented or non-fragmented packets (such as fragment & interleave
in order to deliver a small packet with priority). Some text around this
feature (or lack of feature) would be welcome.

-- section 10.8 --
If you refer to 'extension headers', then use the complete wording 'extension
headers' rather than 'extensions'.

== NITS ==

-- Section 8.4 --
Multiple figures are referred to but do not appear on the same page as the
reference. This hinders the reading.

-- section 10.9 --
s/port/ports/ in the title