Thanks for the comments. See below: On Aug 27, 2008, at 10:22 AM, Chol Su Kang wrote: > Here are my comments on draft-hui-6lowpan-hc-01.txt. > > Figure 1. LOWPAN_IPHC is shown as 1 octet. > But the text describes it is a two-octets field.
That is a mistake in the document. I didn't have a chance to carefully update everything, as you have pointed out in the following comments. > Figure 1. It shows "Uncompressed fields follow" after LOWPAN_IPHC. > But, Figure 5 shows differently. Figures 1 and 5 agree with each other. Uncompressed fields refer to those IP fields that are carried inline. > Sec 2.1 pg 5 > "Next Hop" for NH bit? > Next Hop and Next Header usages are confusing. Yes, this is a mistake and was already pointed out a few times on the list. > Sec 2.1 pg 5 > SAC(?) for Source Address Mode Another typo. > Sec 2.2 pg 6 > Is this ID requiring upper-layer integrity checks? > Are such checks used to detect out of sync, or prevent out of sync? > Can you provide a reference for pseudo-header checksum? From RFC 2460: "when UDP packets are originated by an IPv6 node, the UDP checksum is not optional" > What is the reason for limiting the uni-cast address range > to 15-bit range? See RFC 4944. > Sec 2.3 pg 8 > What is "well-known mapping"? Is it referring well-known multicast > addresses? Refers to the table labeled as "9-bit to 112-bit Group ID Mapping" > Sec 2.4 > Is this intended Range order, i.e. Range 0, 2, 1, 3, 4? Typo again. > Sec 3 > Figure 5: > "In-line IP Fields"? Is this "In-line IPv6 header fields"? Yes. I'm not sure I understand the difference. > Sec 4 > It states that another short address range is reserved in this > document. > However, Sec 2.4 shows the reservation/usage of three additional > ranges. They are already reserved. See RFC 4944. -- Jonathan Hui > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 3:30 AM > To: Carsten Bormann > Cc: 6lowpan > Subject: Re: [6lowpan] HC-01 ready to advance to WG document? > > Hi Carsten: > > Resending your call. There were a number of votes in favor, so I > suggest > that those against should speak now or forever hold their peace. > > Pascal > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Carsten Bormann >> Sent: jeudi 31 juillet 2008 18:56 >> To: 6lowpan >> Cc: Carsten Bormann >> Subject: [6lowpan] HC-01 ready to advance to WG document? >> >> Lowpanners, >> >> we were so pressed for time at the WG meeting that the chairs forgot >> to ask "the question": >> >> Do we believe that draft-hui-6lowpan-hc-01.txt is now ready to become >> the WG document for charter item 2, "6LoWPAN Improved Header >> Compression"? >> >> Note that moving the document to WG document status does not mean we >> have to agree with every detail in there. >> We just need to agree that it is a good basis for the remaining work. >> (Moving to WG document status also means that all further changes >> should be the result of work in the WG, so it also removes a little >> flexibility that the authors of an individual draft have.) >> I believe there was tacit agreement in the room in Dublin, and I now >> want to make the agreement explicit on the mailing list. >> >> As the document has been pretty non-contentious, I'm looking forward >> to comments until Monday 1800 UTC. >> If there are no objections by this time, I'll ask Jonathan to >> resubmit >> the draft as a WG document (possibly with the changes resulting from >> this meeting). >> >> Gruesse, Carsten >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 6lowpan mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
