[6lo] Review comments on draft-ietf-6lo-lopwpanz

Samita Chakrabarti <samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com> Sat, 03 May 2014 00:42 UTC

From: Samita Chakrabarti <samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com>
To: "Anders Brandt (Anders_Brandt@sigmadesigns.com)" <Anders_Brandt@sigmadesigns.com>, Jakob Buron <Jakob_Buron@sigmadesigns.com>
Thread-Topic: Review comments on draft-ietf-6lo-lopwpanz
Thread-Index: Ac9mZ1PJZtcArIRVRKG8D6vgdSGAbw==
Date: Sat, 03 May 2014 00:42:29 +0000
Message-ID: <ECA43DA70480A3498E43C3471FB2E1F01C1B7436@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_ECA43DA70480A3498E43C3471FB2E1F01C1B7436eusaamb103erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/Y1DkoBozSTWEyEyyLk3OQXihkzE
Cc: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
Subject: [6lo] Review comments on draft-ietf-6lo-lopwpanz
Precedence: list

Hello All:

I have reviewed Ander's -04 version of the draft http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-lowpanz/ and provided comments off-line.

Anders have been working on updating the documents and almost ready for the next revisions with the updates.

The comments are mostly editorial and clarification at this point as it is moving to the next step - being the first document to move forward after WGLC.

Here is a summary of my comments:

1. Add definition for "mesh-under" and "route-over". Also add definition for "logical networks" that you used several times in the context of G.9959

2. Clarification needed on "home id" definition and add reference to EUI-64 reference
3. Add reference to ULA RFC 4193

General comment on 'definition of terms': Please add more text to provide a short definition rather than acronym expansion

4. How about adding a section on "G.9959 Topology for IPv6 Transport" ? From the document it is not clear whether the network-controller is also acting as ABR?, whether you have multi-hop subnets or only one hop subnet ? A diagram will help or a section describing the typical topology is needed for understading.

5. Please provide a mapping example as to how to map the homeid into the Ipv6 subnet. Does it mean that the controller gets a /48 prefix and then add the homeid to the 16bit to make it a /64 prefix?

6. section 2.1 - Clarify what it means by complying with RFC 6775 when M bit is on

7. Section 2.4 - is this section trying to say that transmission status indication is useful for reliable and efficient implementation for handling fragmented packets? If so, please clarify.
8. Section 3.1 -- says "Non-6LoWPAN protocols MUST ignore the contents following the 6LoWPAN Command
Class identifier." ---Please explain a bit in details.

8. Section 4.4.2 -- " An implementation for mesh-under operation MUST use RFC6775 for managing IPv6 prefixes" contradicts with section 4.4 "Mesh-under networks MUST NOT use RFC 6775 address registration" -- Requires clarification and reference to sections of RFC6775 to say which sections to implement and which one to skip.

9. section 4.4.2.1 -- Needs clarification/clear text on M flag behavior when it is ON.

10. Appendix A-- HLIM field should be '10' in the last diagram example on page 16.

11. s/Hext header/Next header

--Samita

[6lo] Review comments on draft-ietf-6lo-lopwpanz Samita Chakrabarti
Re: [6lo] Review comments on draft-ietf-6lo-lopwp… Anders Brandt
Re: [6lo] Review comments on draft-ietf-6lo-lopwp… Samita Chakrabarti