Re: [tcpm] [Lwip] Review of draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-04

"Carles Gomez Montenegro" <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu> Sun, 17 November 2019 09:33 UTC

Return-Path: <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCC4D1200C4; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 01:33:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 O52rdU7CCrHI; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 01:33:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dash.upc.es (dash.upc.es [147.83.2.50]) (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 AE9EA12008D; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 01:33:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from entelserver.upc.edu (entelserver.upc.es [147.83.39.4]) by dash.upc.es (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id xAH9Wox0019864; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 10:32:50 +0100
Received: from webmail.entel.upc.edu (webmail.entel.upc.edu [147.83.39.6]) by entelserver.upc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6139B1D53C1; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 10:32:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: from 27.96.125.210 by webmail.entel.upc.edu with HTTP; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 10:32:50 +0100
Message-ID: <bcd55aa0ed37f81db9b88e07682c1d60.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1908281435330.18955@whs-18.cs.helsinki.fi>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1811071352180.14868@whs-18.cs.helsinki.fi> <c9a84f24e05fd1b433cf22fe742857c5.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1904261602000.23031@whs-18.cs.helsinki.fi> <184404a792aadb06ac772ffe05bc3233.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu> <bdb83140-4bc1-dd45-1a5e-e5f4e23c638f@ericsson.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1908281435330.18955@whs-18.cs.helsinki.fi>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 10:32:50 +0100
From: "Carles Gomez Montenegro" <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Ilpo_J=E4rvinen=22?= <ilpo.jarvinen@cs.helsinki.fi>
Cc: "Mohit Sethi M" <mohit.m.sethi@ericsson.com>, "lwip@ietf.org" <lwip@ietf.org>, "tcpm@ietf.org" <tcpm@ietf.org>, "jon.crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk" <jon.crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk>, "kojo@cs.helsinki.fi" <kojo@cs.helsinki.fi>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21-1.fc14
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.100.3 at dash
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: ACL matched, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.3.9 (dash.upc.es [147.83.2.50]); Sun, 17 Nov 2019 10:32:51 +0100 (CET)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/QjL4JPsCvlNVb0x5cpxJBT5tumM>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] [Lwip] Review of draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-04
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 09:33:04 -0000

Hi Ilpo,

First of all, apologies for this very late reply.

Once again, thanks a lot for your thorough review!

We recently published -09. We believe that this last revision addresses
your remaining points below.

Should you have further comments, please do not hesitate to let us know.

Thanks,

Carles




> On Fri, 23 Aug 2019, Mohit Sethi M wrote:
>
>> Hi Ilpo and Markku,
>>
>> Could you confirm that -08 version of the draft addresses all your
>> concerns. We will then send it to the IESG for review.
>
> For me, no major concerns remaining. A few minor points from the text
> edited in -08.
>
> The "pure ACK" might be better to write open, e.g., "ACK without
> payload".
>
> The current text in FR/FR scenario with 1-6 segment might confuse as
> the sixth segment is only sent out on the first (duplicate) ACK. The
> current wording makes it to sound as if 1-6 would be outstanding right
> at the beginning (instead of first 1-5 and then 2-6 after the ACK).
>
> "plus two additional segments for each one of the first two duplicate
> ACKs."
> I think this might be misinterpreted to mean 2*2 segments.
>
>
>
> --
>  i.
>