Hello Eric and Ben: > > == 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.
Yes, and there is no assumption that the fragments will be in order. One could say that it does not matter. It does a little bit in the case of the recovery since we resend in order so we have a chance that a packet still in flight is acked before it is retried. The thing that really matters is the first fragment first. All the best; Pascal _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
