Dear Authors, I went through the draft and I think it is useful. Wish to share my initial thoughts on the text.
- According to my understanding, the draft covers IEEE 1901.1, IEEE 1901.2 and ITU-T G.9903 PLC standards together. After glancing through ITU-T G.9903 specification it appears that the 6LoWPAN adaptation is already defined there. It would be nice if the draft covers those aspects that highlight the major differences that are not covered by ITU-T G.9903. If the difference is not substantial, the draft can just focus on IEEE 1901.1, IEEE 1901.2. - Since routing aspects are outside the scope of 6Lo charter, wonder how important is the routing protocol section for the draft. Of course, LOADng is deeply embedded into ITU-T G.9903 in the form of mesh under routing. Let me know what you think. - Informative reference to LOADng can be included. - Refer to the following text in Section 3. "A routing protocol (e.g., RPL [RFC6550] or AODV-RPL [I-D.ietf-roll-aodv-rpl]) at the Network layer is optional according to the IEEE 1901.1 and IEEE 1901.2 PLC standards mentioned in this document." Depending on the way the reader reads it, the above sentence can be interpreted as "IEEE 1901.1 and IEEE 1901.2 PLC standards are specifically saying RPL and AODV-RPL are optional". Further, "according to the IEEE 1901.1 and IEEE 1901.2 PLC standards mentioned in this document" can be read as the document is defining its own version of IEEE 1901.1 and IEEE 1901.2 PLC standards. Can you rephrase it ? - Refer to the text in Section 4. "However, due to the different characteristics of the PLC media, the 6LoWPAN adaptation layer cannot perfectly fulfill the requirements." At this point of the draft, it is not clear what the requirements are. It is better to substantiate with few unfulfilled requirements that provide motivatation for the draft. Regards Anand _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
