Many thanks for your review, Roman!
Let's see below
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you for this easy to read document.
>
> ** Section 5.1. Per “There is no requirement on the receiver to check for
> contiguity of the received fragments, and the sender MUST ensure that when
> all fragments are acknowledged, then the datagram is fully received.”, the
> second clause doesn’t parse for me. What must the sender ensure when all of
> the fragments are acknowledged?
Yes, awkward. What about simply:
"
There is no requirement on the receiver to check for contiguity of the
received fragments. The sender knows that the datagram is fully received
when the acknowledged fragments cover the whole datagram.
"
>
> ** Section 5.1. Fragment_Size. If this is a 10-bit unsigned integer and the
> unit
> is an octet, shouldn’t fragments up to 1024-1 bytes be possible (not 512)?
Oups fixed
> ** Editorial
>
> -- Section 5.2. Editorial.
> s/A NULL bitmap that indicates that the …/ A NULL bitmap indicates that the
> …/ s/A FULL bitmap that indicates that the …/ A FULL bitmap indicates that the
> …/
Done
> -- Section 6.1. Recommend replacing colloquial language – “It inherits …
> using
> a timer to clean the VRB when the traffic _dries up_”
Does "clean the VRB once the traffic ceases" work?
> -- Section 10. Typo. s/ot this/to this/
Done : )
Many thanks again Roman!
I posted v13 with the proposed diffs from your review and that of Peter:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery-13
Pascal
_______________________________________________
6lo mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
