Thank you Carles and authors. I read the diff and my comments are handled with what I had in mind.
Best, Rahul On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 at 03:18, Carles Gomez Montenegro <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
