Dear Lihao, Thank you for your comments. Please find my responses inline.
Best regards, Remy From: 6lo [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chenlihao (Lihao, IP Technology Research Dept NW) Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 2:47 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [6lo] comments on draft-hou-6lo-plc-04 Hello authors, I think this draft gives a good guideline for IPv6 adaptation on PLC. The draft has a quite complete description. However, some points need to be clarified. Please find my comments below. - The preface of the section 3 is not well organized. The content of the two paragraphs seems to be relevant, but the features of the same PLC technology are not in the same paragraph. [Remy] Good point, we will revise these two paragraphs. - It is reasonable that different PLC technologies have different terminologies, but the draft should build up a mapping between them. For example, in section 4.3, 1901.1 uses NID and TEI, while 1901.2 uses PAN ID and Device ID. [Remy] Yes, we will add a mapping table of the terminologies. In section 4.3, as the two LLAs are designed separately for IEEE1901.1 and 1901.2 & G.9903, we can use the a PLC's own terminology in its related LLA. Does it make sense? - For Fragmentation and Reassembly, the draft says that "the number of data octets of the PHY payload can change dynamically based on channel conditions", thus even for IEEE 1901.1 and 1901.2, the MTU can be lower than 1280 bytes. But the second paragraph says that fragmentation and assembly MUST NOT be used. Any contradiction here? [Remy] I think there is a misunderstanding here. It is the PHY packet size that can change. Since the data link layer has the capability of fragmentation and Reassembly, as long as the MAC is capable to support 1280 bytes, there is no need to have the fragmentation in the adaptation layer. We will clarify this point. Thanks for indicating. - The "charging station to EV communication" use case may not be appropriate for using ADOV-RPL in PLC tree network. Since the charging station and the EV are directly connected to each other, it should be parent to child communication instead of P2P. [Remy] You are right about this. EV charging is not a good example for mesh network. We will delete it. Cheers, Lihao
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
