Re: [lp-wan] WGLC in effect, ending soon! Re: Second last call for SCHC/IP

[Edgar Ramos <[e-mail]>]

Hi ,
Thanks for a good version of the new draft, some minor observation to the a sentence in the document.

In relation to fragmentation, the Baseline mechanism (Section 8.5) says: “SCHC Packet does not fit within the payload of a single L2 data unit , the SCHC Packet SHALL be broken  into SCHC Fragments and the fragments SHALL be sent to the fragment   receiver.”

I would prefer a text more in line to what the overview section (5) says: “If the SCHC Packet size exceeds the layer 2 (L2) MTU,   fragmentation is then applied to the SCHC Packet.”
In NB-IoT the L2 data units gets a bit confusing specially when comparing with other technologies (if is a MAC, or RLC, or PDCP or NAS PDU) . Therefore, is better to talk of MTUs instead, since it doesn’t matter what L2 data unit we are talking it is restricted to the handling of MTUs.

Great work and thanks to all the authors

Br

Edgar Ramos

From: lp-wan <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of [e-mail]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 19:59
To: lp-wan <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: [lp-wan] WGLC in effect, ending soon! Re: Second last call for SCHC/IP

Hello WG,

This is a reminder that a Working Group Last Call is on-going for the UDP/IPv6 SCHC draft (draft-ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc).
See the draft at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc-16

Excerpting from Pascal's mail
>Dear WG,

>

>  This document has changed to a sufficient degree that I think a 2nd last call is warranted.

>  Emulating what Lou is doing at DetNet, I'd like to start a 3 week LC right ending in our WG session (Thursday July 16th in the morning.)

>  As always, please send LC comment to the list and positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready for publication", is totally acceptable and most welcome.

>

>Thank you all again.
>
>Pascal

The deadline is coming up soon, less than 3 days remaining.
Please voice your opinion as per Pascal's request.
Thank you for your attention

Dominique

De : Pascal Thubert <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date : Friday 29 June 2018 05:28
À : "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc : lp-wan <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Objet : Second last call for SCHC/IP
Renvoyer - De : <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Renvoyer - À : <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Carles Montenegro <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Dominique Barthel <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Renvoyer - Date : Friday 29 June 2018 05:28


Dear Authors,



    I started the shepherding process and indeed there were a good number of changes to address carefully the many tickets that we processed.

     We must thank you deeply for the effort but the work is not fully done yet! “Before you submit your draft, it is recommended that you check it for nits using the idnits tool<https://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/>.”

    Please fix the easy NITs and republish before Monday: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc-14.txt

    Other changes needed:


  *   Change to standard track. <rfc category="std" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc-15 "  updates="4944">
  *   Check your references, RFC 2460 is no more needed and a number must move to the Informative reference section (see RFC 3967):

     *   RFC 3385
     *   RFC 4944
     *   RFC 5795
     *   RFC 6936
     *   RFC 7136



  *   Please add a IANA section. It appears that we are not requesting anything from IANA, so the following is sufficient:
                               “
<section title="IANA Considerations">
        <t>This document has no request to IANA. </t>
</section>
          “


  *   Please add a reference to BCP 14; adding the text below in the terminology section  is sufficient
                               “
<section anchor='bcp' title="BCP 14">
<t>

    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
    "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
    "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14
    <xref target="RFC2119"/><xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they
    appear in all capitals, as shown here.

</t>
</section> <!-- end section "BCP 14" -->
                        “



Dear WG,



   This document has changed to a sufficient degree that I think a 2nd last call is warranted.

    Emulating what Lou is doing at DetNet, I'd like to start a 3 week LC right ending in our WG session (Thursday July 16th in the morning.)

   As always, please send LC comment to the list and positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready for publication", is totally acceptable and most welcome.



Thank you all again.

Pascal

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.