Hello authors, The draft is much more clear than its initial version. Good work. I would suggest you to clear the discussion about fragmentation. In the current version its little confusing, for example you can clearly describe either itstransport layer or MAC layer fragmentation. Even if you are not using you can eliminate confusing text.
Regards Sajjad On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 5:47 PM Chenlihao (Lihao, IP Technology Research Dept NW) <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > > > - 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. > > > > - 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? > > > > - 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. > > > > > > Cheers, > > Lihao > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo >
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
