CC'ing tsv-art...
On 9/26/2016 2:34 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > > Hi, all, > > I've reviewed this document as part of the Transport Area Review > Team's (TSVART) 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 for their information and to > allow them to address any issues raised. When done at the time of IETF > Last Call, the authors should consider this review together with any > other last-call comments they receive. Please always CC > tsv-...@ietf.org <mailto:tsv-...@ietf.org> if you reply to or forward > this review. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd > or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > Document: draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule > Transmission of IPv6 Packets over DECT Ultra Low Energy > Reviewer: J. Touch > Review Date: Sept 26, 2016 > IETF Last Call Date: TBD > > Summary: The document impacts transport protocols only indirectly > through its need to support the minimum required IPv6 MTU, but is > imprecise about the corresponding details of those requirements. > > Major issues: There are no major TSV issues in this document. > > Minor issues: The following modification should be considered for > increased clarity: > > Sec 2.4 indicates that the default MTU for DECT UL is 500 octets and > does note that: > > ...In order to > support complete IP packets, the DLC layer of DECT ULE SHALL per this > specification be configured with a MTU size that fits the > requirements from IPv6 data packets, hence [RFC4944 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4944>] fragmentation/ > reassembly is not required. > > It would be useful to update this text to be more clear about this > referring to IPv6 only (as per the title of the doc), to indicate the > minimum MTU, and to explain the reference to RFC4944: > > ...In order to support IPv6, the DLC layer of DECT ULE MUST be > configured with a MTU of at least 1280B to avoid the need for > an RFC4944-style shim layer for additional support for larger > payload fragmentation/reassembly [RFC4944]." > > --- >
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
