Hi, The published -11 text is even better than the proposal below.
Thanks Brian Carpenter On 23/03/2018 08:10, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > That looks good to me. I think it will help implementers. > > Thanks > Brian Carpenter > > On 22/03/2018 21:41, Xavi Vilajosana Guillen wrote: >> Dear Brian, >> >> after the WG meeting we proceed to resolve your pointed issue. Thanks so >> much for going through the draft again. >> >> We will publish v11 with the following update on the text as you suggested. >> We hope this clarifies your point. >> >> >> In section 3.1.1. 2-step 6P Transaction >> we added: >> Race conditions MAY happen when a timeout expires while a 6P >> Response is on the air. Other inconsistencies can also happen >> when the last L2 ACK for a 6P Response is lost or when one of the >> nodes is power cycled. 6P provides an inconsistency detection >> mechanism described in Section 3.4.6.1 to cope with such >> situations. >> >> >> In section 3.1.2. 3-step 6P Transaction >> we added: >> Race conditions MAY happen when a timeout expires while a 6P >> Confirmation is on the air. Other inconsistencies can also >> happen when the last L2 ACK for a 6P Confirmation is lost or when >> one of the nodes is power cycled. 6P provides an inconsistency >> detection mechanism described in Section 3.4.6.1 to cope with >> such situations. >> >> >> kind regards >> Xavi >> >> >> 2018-03-11 4:11 GMT+01:00 Brian Carpenter <[email protected]>: >> >>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter >>> Review result: Ready >>> >>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area >>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed >>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just >>> like any other last call comments. >>> >>> For more information, please see the FAQ at >>> >>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >>> >>> Document: draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol-10 >>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter >>> Review Date: 2018-03-10 >>> IETF LC End Date: 2018-03-26 >>> IESG Telechat date: 2018-04-05 >>> >>> Summary: Ready >>> >>> Comment: >>> >>> Most of my previous comments have been fixed, thanks. I still disagree >>> with the authors on one point, but not enough to delay the draft: >>> >>> In section 3.1.1 "2-step 6P Transaction" there seems to be a rare race >>> condition >>> if A's timeout expires while B's Response is in flight. This will be >>> detected >>> later as an inconsistency (section 3.4.6.2). The authors don't think it's >>> necessary >>> to mention this in 3.1.1. IMHO it would be useful to mention. (Similarly >>> for >>> section 3.1.2, 3-step transaction.) >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
