Hi Rahul, Many thanks for your last review!
We just submitted -07, which is intended to incorporate your last round of comments. Should you have further comments, please do not hesitate to let us know. Cheers, Carles > Carles, Thanks for incorporating the comments and feedback. I did a round > of review and the comments are handled according to what I had in mind. > Thanks. > > There are some more comments I had during my subsequent review. Please > have > a look. I will provide the shepherd write-up after this. > > Best, > Rahul > > --------Comments------- > 1) Section 2 > "The IPv6 forwarding devices of the mesh have to implement both Node and > Router > roles, while simpler leaf-only nodes can implement only the Node role." > The roles here refer to roles as described in Bluetooth IPSP Spec. I was > confused with the Host and Route mode as described in RFC 4861. I would > suggest > adding explicit ref here. > [Later I found that a para above has a context for IPSP and the > Node/Router > roles. Thus I would leave it up to you to add an explicit ref.] > > 2) Section 3.3.1: > "Multihop DAD functionality as defined ... MUST be supported." > RFC7668 didn't mandate DAD. I am not sure if we should mandate it here. If > an > implementation decides to use SLAAC with a static link address then DAD > won't be > necessary. The cost of multihop DAD is high. > > 3) Section 3.3.2: > "A Bluetooth LE host MUST register its non-link-local addresses ... " > > This stmt contradicts with another stmt in section 3.3.3 which says, > "A 6LN SHOULD register its non-link-local address with EARO in the > next-hop router. Note that in some cases (e.g. very short-lived > connections) it may not be worthwhile for a 6LN to send an NS with > EARO for registering its address." > > My suggestion would be to use SHOULD even in Section 3.3.2. > > 4) Section 3.3.3: > "... non-link-local packet transmissions originated and performed by a > 6LN, > and > non-link-local packets intended for a 6LN that are originated or forwarded > by a > neighbor of that 6LN." > What does "performed by a 6LN" imply here? Suggest just keeping originated > by > a 6LN, unless I am missing sth here. > > 5) [nit] Section 3.3.3: > "..., context- based compression MAY be used." > remove space between "context- based" > --------End of Comments------- > > On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 01:04, Carles Gomez Montenegro < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> 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
