Subject: [6lo] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-02

From: "Carles Gomez Montenegro" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 12:26:04 +0200

Dear authors,

First of all, thanks for your work.

As the shepherd for draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-02, I have reviewed
the document, and have the following comments:

- "LLN" is used in the title and in the abstract, but the actual body of
the document uses the term "6LoWPAN" (or "6Lo"), which in fact is more
specific. Should "LLN" be replaced with "6LoWPAN" (or "6Lo")?  (I tend to
think so...)

- The document uses the term "minimal" also in the title and in the
abstract, but the document does not explicitly define how the concept of
"minimal" needs to be understood. Furthermore, "minimal" is not present in
the body of the document. Perhaps some clarification on the concept of
"minimal" (e.g. in the Introduction) might help the reader.

- The idnits tool reports a few issues that should be taken care of (at
least, the first and the last ones). Please find them below for your
convenience:

  ** The abstract seems to contain references
     ([I-D.ietf-lwig-6lowpan-virtual-reassembly]), which it shouldn't.
     Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in
     question.
  -- The document date (June 24, 2019) is 24 days in the past.  Is this
     intentional?
  -- Found something which looks like a code comment -- if you have code
     sections in the document, please surround them with '<CODE BEGINS>' and
     '<CODE ENDS>' lines.
  == Unused Reference: 'BOOK' is defined on line 266, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--).

I have no further comments.

Thanks!

Carles

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 21:08:19 +0000

Hello Carles

Manu thanks for you review!

Please see below

> 
> - "LLN" is used in the title and in the abstract, but the actual body of the
> document uses the term "6LoWPAN" (or "6Lo"), which in fact is more specific.
> Should "LLN" be replaced with "6LoWPAN" (or "6Lo")?  (I tend to think so...)
>

Yes, in the title that makes sense.
Actually we use the term Low Power Lossy Network beyond 6lo, e.g., in ROLL.
I'd rather keep the term but certainly expand it on first use.
 
> - The document uses the term "minimal" also in the title and in the abstract,
> but the document does not explicitly define how the concept of "minimal"
> needs to be understood. Furthermore, "minimal" is not present in the body of
> the document. Perhaps some clarification on the concept of "minimal" (e.g. in
> the Introduction) might help the reader.

Right. 
It is minimal vs. the flow control and recovery of the other draft. This is why we split.
But I agree with you that the term minimal is not needed at all. Could we just remove it?
Based on your 2 suggestions combined, the title becomes "6LoWPAN Fragment Forwarding"

> 
> - The idnits tool reports a few issues that should be taken care of (at least, the
> first and the last ones). Please find them below for your
> convenience:
> 

Ack: The resulting abstract would be:

This document provides a simple method to forwarding 6LoWPAN fragments.
When employing adaptation layer fragmentation in 6LoWPAN, it may be beneficial 
for a forwarder not to have to reassemble each packet in its entirety before forwarding it.
This has always been possible with the original fragmentation design of RFC4944.
This method reduces the latency and increases end-to-end reliability in route-over forwarding.
It is the companion to the virtual Reassembly Buffer which is a pure implementation technique.

>   -- The document date (June 24, 2019) is 24 days in the past.  Is this

I'll post a 03

>      sections in the document, please surround them with '<CODE BEGINS>' and

NO such thing.

>      reference was found in the text

Removed the ref

> I have no further comments.

Great!

Please confirm that you're OK with the changes above and Ill post

Many thanks again

Pascal

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 17:33:08 -0400

> I'd rather keep the term but certainly expand it on first use.

I’d rather get rid of it.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 19:39:11 -0400

> I’d rather get rid of it.

The document is about 6LoWPAN/6lo and its way to fragment packets.
You don’t have to run RPL to use fragment forwarding.
RFC 7102 specifically says its terminology is for ROLL work, so I won’t say anything about using that there, but it is not very accurate otherwise.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 22:37:59 -0400

> Based on your 2 suggestions combined, the title becomes "6LoWPAN Fragment Forwarding"

Sounds good.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: "Carles Gomez Montenegro" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 10:59:43 +0200

Hello Pascal, Carsten,

Yes, I am OK with your proposed updates, including that the title becomes
"6LoWPAN Fragment Forwarding".

Thanks for addressing my comments!

Cheers,

Carles

>> the
>> abstract,
>> least, the
> _______________________________________________
> 6lo mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
>