Mirja Kuehlewind <i...@kuehlewind.net> wrote:
> Sorry for my late reply (but I guess you could have just went ahead and
> push a new version anyway…). Please see below.
My edits went into a new version which Malisa did push out.
>>
>>
>>> Further on there seems to be an implicit requirement that
>>> the JP MUST implement rate limit using the PROBING_RATE parameter,
>>> however, that is never explicitly spelled out as a normative
>>> requirement. However, if this rate is not provided by the JRC, it
>>> doesn't seem that any rate limiting has to be enforced. So maybe it
>>> would be good to be more strict here.
>>
>> I think you are saying that we should have a default PROBING_RATE, if
the JRC
>> does not specify one. I think that we assumed that the RFC7257 section
4.8
>> value of 1 byte/second would apply. please confirm?
> Yes, stating this explicitly would be good!
-Following {{RFC7252}}, the average data rate in sending to the JRC must not
exceed PROBING_RATE.
+Following {{RFC7252}}, the average data rate in sending to the JRC must not
exceed PROBING_RATE, which specifies a default of 1 byte/second.
>>> 2) Also, not sure if this editorial or a real issue but I'm not sure I
>>> fully understand this sentence:
>>
>>> Sec 6.1.1: "A Join Proxy that does not set the DSCP on traffic
>>> forwarded should set it to zero so that it is compressed out." If the
>>> proxy does NOT SET DSCP, why should it SET it to zero?
>>
>> Because RFC6282 (and friends) has specific encoding to omit DSCP if it
is zero.
> I understand what you want to do but saying “does not set” but “should
> set” seems to be contracting. I think this is only a wording issue
> though. I guess it could be something like this:
> "A Join Proxy that does not require a specific DSCP value on traffic
> forwarded should set it to zero so that it is compressed out.”
Done.
>>> 3) This may also be mostly editorial but just to be sure: Section 7..2
>>> provides default values for some of the CoAP transport parameter (where
>>> 2 of 3 are the same as defined in RFC7252) but not for all. Why is
>>> that?
>>
>> We got pushback about relying on 7252 defaults, because what if they
changed.
> That’s fine but the you need to add all values!
Malisa?
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [
] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list 6tisch@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
