Dear authors, Following are some review comments based on the latest updates to the document: 1. In the last revision, the draft mandated the use of NS(EARO) in place NS(ARO). This change is not consistently applied in the document. E.g., in section 3.3.3, the draft continues to use NS(ARO). 2. Section 3.3.3 also mandates the use of the 6CO option. 6CO option may not be necessary in case a single prefix is used in the network. The CID defaults to zero which results in the use of default prefix. 3. Section 3.3.3 the following statement is not clear, "In particular, the latter comprise link-local interactions, non-link- local packet transmissions originated and performed by a 6LN, and non-link-local packets transmitted (but not necessarily originated) by the neighbor of a 6LN to that 6LN." 4. I think the draft will benefit from a call flow diagram depicting the node joining procedure. 6LN ----(RS)-------> 6LR 6LN <---(RA-PIO)---- 6LR 6LN ----(NS-EARO)--> 6LR [Multihop DAD procedure] 6LN <---(NA)-------- 6LR 6LN can now start acting as 6LR and advertise its own RA 6LN ----(RA)--
Regards, Rahul _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
