[Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery-11

Colin Perkins via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 10 February 2020 18:25 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietf.org
Delivered-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90A65120074; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 10:25:57 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Colin Perkins via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <tsv-art@ietf.org>
Cc: last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery.all@ietf.org, 6lo@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.117.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
Message-ID: <158135915750.3970.15055299184182938182@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 10:25:57 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/jDuNwgBOnA3RTnBqOvAUfo2nfjg>
Subject: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery-11
X-BeenThere: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 18:25:58 -0000

Reviewer: Colin Perkins
Review result: Ready with Nits

This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.

The document updates RFC 4944 to provide a selective fragment recovery
scheme for 6LoWPAN networks. It builds on draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment
and on the virtual reassembly buffers described in the expired draft

The mechanism is generally well described and clearly specified. My main
concern is that the performance of the mechanism will heavily depend on
the values selected for the parameters described in Section 7.1, but
there is little guidance provided on how to set these parameters for
particular link layers. The draft would be improved if it could point
to some more detailed guidance on parameter choice for particualar
scenarios, or to further discussion on how to estimate parameters.

Section 1, 3rd paragraph, typo: "[RFC4944] as no selective recovery and the
whole datagram fails when" -> "has no"?

Section 7.1: Description of OptFragmentSize refers to MinFragmentSize