Subject: Re: [6lo] review of 6lo-blemesh

From: "Carles Gomez Montenegro" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2019 19:03:55 +0200

Dear Rahul,

First of all, apologies for the late response.

Thank you very much for your review.

We have just submitted -06, which is intended to address your comments:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-06

Should you have any further concerns, please do not hesitate to let us know.

Cheers,

Carles (as a WG participant)

> Dear authors,
>
> Following are some review comments based on the latest updates to the
> document:
> 1. In the last revision, the draft mandated the use of NS(EARO) in
> place NS(ARO). This change is not consistently applied in the
> document. E.g., in section 3.3.3, the draft continues to use NS(ARO).
> 2. Section 3.3.3 also mandates the use of the 6CO option. 6CO option
> may not be necessary in case a single prefix is used in the network.
> The CID defaults to zero which results in the use of default prefix.
> 3. Section 3.3.3 the following statement is not clear, "In particular,
> the latter comprise link-local interactions, non-link- local packet
> transmissions originated and performed by a 6LN, and non-link-local
> packets transmitted (but not necessarily originated) by the neighbor
> of a 6LN to that 6LN."
> 4. I think the draft will benefit from a call flow diagram depicting
> the node joining procedure.
>    6LN ----(RS)-------> 6LR
>    6LN <---(RA-PIO)---- 6LR
>    6LN ----(NS-EARO)--> 6LR
>    [Multihop DAD procedure]
>    6LN <---(NA)--------  6LR
>    6LN can now start acting as 6LR and advertise its own RA
>    6LN ----(RA)--
>
> Regards,
> Rahul
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6lo mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
>