#18: Spencer's IESG review

 From: 6lo [mailto:6lo-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins at
 Sent: vendredi 30 septembre 2016 17:18
 To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthub...@cisco.com>
 Cc: 6lo-cha...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-6lo-paging-dispa...@ietf.org;
 j...@nestlabs.com; The IESG <i...@ietf.org>; 6lo@ietf.org; Alvaro Retana
 (aretana) <aret...@cisco.com>
 Subject: Re: [6lo] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-paging-
 dispatch-04: (with COMMENT)

 Hi, Pascal,

 On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 4:36 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
 <pthub...@cisco.com> wrote:
 Hello Spencer;

 Thanks a bunch for your review. Please see in line;

 When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
 email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
 introductory paragraph, however.)


 I found this text

    A Page (say Page N) is said to be active once the Page N Paging
    Dispatch is parsed, and as long as no other Paging Dispatch is

 somewhat unclear. Is it saying

    A Page (say Page N) is said to be active once the Page N Paging
    Dispatch is parsed, and remains active until another Paging
    Dispatch is parsed.


 [Pascal Thubert (pthubert)] Yes, and I like your sentence above better
 than the original. The temporal aspect (your "until") still remains to be
 clarified, as meaning "as the packet headers are being processed from the
 first to the last octet. Do we need to indicated that or is the implicit
 good enough?

 It's good enough for me :-)

 I wasn't quite sure what "so far" meant in this text (and temporal
 references in RFCs that live forever are somewhat confusing, anyway).

       As a result, there is no need so far for restoring the Page 0
       parsing context after a context was switched to Page 1, so the
       value for the Page 0 Paging Dispatch of 11110000 may not actually
       occur in those packets that adhere to 6LoWPAN specifications
       available at the time of writing this specification.

 Would this be just as correct with "so far" deleted, or am I not
 understanding the point you're making?

 [Pascal Thubert (pthubert)] I meant at the time of this publication, there
 is no known standard that has a case where page 0 would need to be
 restored after switching to page one. Does removing the so far express
 that correctly?

 I think so.

 Thanks for explaining why you're choosing "Specification Required" as your
 IANA policy.

 [Pascal Thubert (pthubert)] The bottom line is that for most of these 6Lo
 networks, there is no equivalent to ethertype. We were already cornered
 with the ITU that started using some escape codes without IETF agreement.
 Now we are opening a very large namespace, we want it to be used by many
 communities beyond IETF, but we also indicate that we wish the IANA to
 manage that namespace like the IEEE does for ethertypes; and we wish that
 non experimental values are registered based on some standard action not
 just anyone asking for one. Now, this question leads to another. Should we
 reserve one page, say page 15, for experimentations?

 That sounds reasonable to this outsider.

 Do the right thing, of course :-)


 Reporter:                     |      Owner:  spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com
  pthub...@cisco.com           |     Status:  new
     Type:  defect             |  Milestone:  milestone1
 Priority:  major              |    Version:  2.0
Component:  paging-dispatch    |   Keywords:
 Severity:  Submitted WG       |
  Document                     |

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6lo/trac/ticket/18>
6lo <https://tools.ietf.org/6lo/>

6lo mailing list

Reply via email to