Hi Carsten, All, This is a follow up of previous feedback.
We submitted an update with several improvements, namely: - Even stronger applicability scope right at the beginning of the document; - Clarification in the architectural overview; - Detailed the address assignment procedure (including the definition of two ND options) - Revised and detailed the different roles of the node (root/forwarder/leaf). We welcome any further feedback on this latest version. Thanks Ciao L. Sent from my iPad > On 17 Feb 2022, at 13:08, Luigi Iannone <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Carsten, > > Thanks for your mail. > Please see inline. > > Ciao > > L. > > >> On 17 Feb 2022, at 11:11, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 2021-12-14, at 10:09, Luigi Iannone <[email protected]> wrote: >>> While we believe that the document is becoming mature, we still welcome any >>> feedback people can send us. >> I haven’t read the new version, > You should. We did a lot of improvements ;-) > >> but I stick with the observation that the problem/opportunity addressed is >> already solved with 6lo header compression (and will be more so once we have >> SCHC header compression in 6lo), > Yes, the 6lo header compression is suitable in general for all IoT scenarios. > However, this draft is targeting at scenarios and applications with static > network topology and stable network connections. > In those cases, the NSA could bring in even shorter packet header > (addressing) and _more_ importantly much simpler (stateless) forwarding > mechanism, which will further saves the power consumption of the IoT system. > >> and NSA does not have the same desirable properties with respect to >> preserving IPv6 semantics that the header compression solutions have. > Can you articulate a bit more? Exactly which “desirable property” is present > in HC but not in NSA. > I can provide an example of the other way around, NSA provides stateless > forwarding, HC does not do that. > The new version of the document (read it :-) ) provides all the details on > the operations to be performed on the gateway to translate from NSA to IPv6 > and vice versa. > >> Right now, I would like us to focus on making the SCHC solution really good. > I am also willing to help, but one does not exclude the other... > >> In the end, that may not look very different on the wire from NSA (as far as >> addresses are concerned — SCHC of course can do more). > We are coding the simulator exactly to quantify the differences. In certain > scenarios NSA provide some advantage. > But do not forget the second important property: stateless forwarding, we > believe it is not negligible. > > Ciao > > L. > > > >> Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
