Hi Pascal,
I went through the latest rev and found an off-by-one error on the Fragment
size.
* Section 5.1.
Fragment_Size: 10-bit unsigned integer; the size of this fragment in
a unit that depends on the Link-Layer technology. Unless
overridden by a more specific specification, that unit is the
byte, which allows fragments up to 1024 bytes.
Shouldn’t this be fragments upto *1023* bytes instead of 1024 bytes?
Thanks
Suresh
> On Mar 23, 2020, at 9:54 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello Again Mirja : )
>
>
>> Thanks for this additional text. I just cleared my discuss.
> Very cool; again and again, many thanks for your deep reviews.
>
>>
>> A couple of nits you/Suresh maybe want to add as RFC editor note:
>
>
> Happy to republish:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery-21
>
>>
>> OLD
>> Note that the action upon detecting a congestion only applies till the end of
>> the datagram
>> NEW Note that the action upon detecting congestion only
>> applies till the end of the datagram.
>> MAYBE EVEN
>> Note that any action that has been performed upon detection of congestion
>> only applies for the transmission of one datagram
>
> Picked the latter
>
>>
>> OLD
>> an inter-frame gap can be as a flow control or a congestion control measure
>> NEW The inter-frame gap can be used as a flow control or a congestion
>> control measure
>
> done
>
>> OLD
>> a conservative Window_Size of, say, 3, will be the gating factor that starves
>> the sender
>> MAYBE a conservative Window_Size of, say, 3, will be the gating
>> factor that limits the transmission rate of the sender
>>
>
>
> Again and again, many thanks;
> all the best with the IAB,
>
> Pascal
>
_______________________________________________
6lo mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
