On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 05:33:45AM -0800, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker wrote: > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-12: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thank you for the work put into this document. It is very easy to read. > > Nevertheless, please find below some non-blocking COMMENTs (and I would > appreciate a response from the authors) and NITS. > > As I reviewed draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery before this document, I put > some > COMMENTs in my review of draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery that also apply to > this document. > > I hope that this helps to improve the document, > > Regards, > > -éric > > == COMMENTS == > > Is there a reason why this document uses "Link-Layer address" while the > companion, draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery, uses "MAC address" ? This is > cosmetic of course but if the concept is the same, using the same wording > could > only improve the readability of the documents. Same applies for "datagram_tag" > vs "Datagram_Tag" ;-) > > -- Section 5 -- > "Multiple fragments may progress in parallel" is not really correct as the > rather travel "simultaneously" as they follow the same path but at different > steps (i.e. not like using parallel links). > > -- Section 6 -- > The "no per-fragment routing" can also be seen as an advantage as it forces > all > fragments to be in order.
I think that still requires cooperation from all intermediate nodes, absent some requirement for them to clear buffers in FIFO order. -Ben _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
