Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-07

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Many thanks Joerg!

Please see below:

> Generally, the document is in good state and almost ready to publish. A few
> nits, one on protocol state management below:
> 
> Nits:
> 
> The text uses both "6lo fragments" and "6LoWPAN fragments".

Changed to 6LoWPAN fragments everywhere


> 
> Section 5, end of 1st para:
> "Since the datagram_tag is uniquely associated to the source Link-Layer
> address of the fragment, the forwarding node MUST assign a new
> datagram_tag from its own namespace for the next hop and rewrite the
> fragment header of each fragment with that datagram_tag."
> 
> This sentence is correct but it comes after the description of handling
> subsequent fragments, rather than the first one, and subsequent ones should,
> of course, not receive a new datagram_tag. Maybe move the sentence further
> up or make explicit reference to the first fragment.

Great point, moved up.

> 
> Sect. 5, bullet list, "* a datagram_size"
> Just as a remark, this does not seem to be used. It *could* be used to check if
> a fragment beyond the end of the packet arrives, but has otherwise no
> (documented) meaning. The draft should spell out its purpose.

Since we did not use it the simplest is to remove it 😊

> 
> Sect. 5, bullet list, "a timer that allows discarding the stale FF state after some
> timeout"
> Surely needed, but no advice is given. There is generally no explicit statement
> when to discard the state. What should an implementation do to interoperate,
> given that upstream multiplexing of packet fragments from multiple sources
> can yield diverse intervals between consecutive fragments? Would this be the
> same timer previously used for reassembly? If so, maybe just state this.

Great point again! Does the below work, added to the bullet?
"
The duration of the timer should be longer than that which covers the reassembly at the receiving end point. 
"

> 
> Sect. 7, 2nd bullet: "attck" -> "attack"
> 

Fixed!


Many thanks again, Joerg. I posted 09 with the above. Please let me know if we are OK?

All the best

Pascal