Dear Rahul, First of all, apologies for the late response.
Thank you very much for your review. We have just submitted -06, which is intended to address your comments: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-06 Should you have any further concerns, please do not hesitate to let us know. Cheers, Carles (as a WG participant) > 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 > _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
