Hi Carles, Thanks, yes. I think all the amendments you're proposing for -05 are fine with me.
Best regards, Bill On 05/02/19 11:19, Carles Gomez Montenegro wrote: > Hi Bill, > > First of all, thank you very much for your valuable comments, and sorry > for the delay. > > Please find below inline responses to your comments: > >> Hi all, >> >> I read the draft and I think this is an important work particularly to >> extend RFC 7668 from its existing star topology. I have the following >> comments: >> >> * In several places, the phrase "IPv6 over mesh networks composed of BLE >> links" is used. In others, the phrase "IPv6 mesh over Bluetooth LE" is >> used, while I also discovered "IPv6-enabled mesh of Bluetooth LE links". >> I think the authors should settle on one phrase (my preference would be >> "IPv6 mesh over BLE links") to avoid confusion that the draft is about >> deploying IPv6 over the recently standardised BLE mesh technology. > > Agreed. Our upcoming update of the draft (-05) will show "IPv6 mesh over > BLE links" as the only term used. > >> * Section 1 has the following sentence: "However, subsequent Bluetooth >> specifications allow the formation of extended topologies [BTCorev4.1], >> such as the mesh >> Â Â topology." What extended topologies from the BT Core document are >> relevant for the mesh described in this document, which didn't exist >> when RFC 7668 became available? If none, I suggest removing this >> sentence (and perhaps avoiding the issue mentioned in the next bullet >> point). > > In fact, none, since Bluetooth 4.1 was already out when RFC 7668 became > available. > > As per your suggestion, the following would be our planned change: > > OLD: > Bluetooth 4.0 only supports Bluetooth LE > networks that follow the star topology. In consequence, RFC 7668 was > specifically developed and optimized for that type of network > topology. However, subsequent Bluetooth specifications allow the > formation of extended topologies [BTCorev4.1], such as the mesh > topology. The functionality described in RFC 7668 is not sufficient > and would fail to enable IPv6 over mesh networks composed of > Bluetooth LE links. > > NEW: > Bluetooth 4.0 only supports Bluetooth LE > networks that follow the star topology. In consequence, RFC 7668 was > specifically developed and optimized for that type of network > topology. However, the functionality described in RFC 7668 is not > sufficient and would fail to enable an IPv6 mesh over BLE links. > >> * Bluetooth SIG deprecated the Bluetooth Core Specification 4.1 >> mentioned in the previous point was very recently (actually, yesterday). >> Perhaps this should be taken into account? > > Great point. > > At the very least, we need to remove [BTCorev4.1] from the "Normative > references" section of the draft. Probably, it can still be included in > the "Informative references" section, since the historic information in > Section 2 about version 4.1 opening the door to topologies beyond the star > topology is still correct. > > Then, in the first paragraph of section 2, the first "Bluetooth 4.1" > instance can now be replaced by "Bluetooth 4.1 (now deprecated)". > > Also, > > OLD: > Consistently with Bluetooth 4.1, a device may implement both roles > simultaneously. > > NEW: > Consistently with Bluetooth 4.1 and subsequent Bluetooth versions > (e.g. Bluetooth 4.2 [BTCorev4.2] or subsequent), a device may > implement both roles simultaneously. > > ... with [BTCorev4.2] being added as a normative reference. > > Please let us know if the above proposed changes would address your concerns. > >> Otherwise the draft is in good shape and is ready for submission to IESG. > > Once again, thank you very much for your comments, and for your support. > > Cheers, > > Carles > > >> Best regards, >> >> Bill >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 6lo mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo >> > > _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
