Hi Thomas, The responses to my comments almost all look fine to me. Just one point, on MINOR COMMENT 4 (slide 8):
"Shouldn't this also say that this value MUST NOT be used in operational networks?" We've seen many cases over the years of informal values making it into shipped products... generally a Bad Thing. But with my lack of IEEE802.15.4 expertise, I really don't know whether it matters in this case. Whatever the WG decides is good, as long as the point is considered. I hope the interim goes well, it is too far out of my time zone to attend! Thanks Brian On 05/01/2017 03:43, Thomas Watteyne wrote: > Brian, all, > > We have discussed the possible resolutions to your comments with Xavi. I > have captured those in a slideset [1] to be presented at this Friday's > interim meeting [2]. > > Early comments about the discussions and proposed resoltuion in the > slideset, in preparation for their presentation on Friday, welcome. > > Thomas > > [1] > https://bitbucket.org/6tisch/meetings/src/master/170106_webex/slides_170106_webex_b_minimal_brian.ppt?fileviewer=file-view-default > [2] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tisch/current/msg05106.html > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Thomas Watteyne <thomas.watte...@inria.fr> > wrote: > >> Brian, >> Just a quick admin update that the authors have taken your comments into >> account, which will be integrated in -18. >> We will discuss the proposed resolutions at an interim meeting this Friday >> and publish it next week. >> Thomas >> >> On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Brian Carpenter < >> brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter >>> Review result: Almost Ready >>> >>> Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-17 >>> >>> 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 >>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >>> >>> Document: draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-17.txt >>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter >>> Review Date: 2016-12-11 >>> IETF LC End Date: 2016-12-20 >>> IESG Telechat date: 2017-01-05 >>> >>> Summary: Almost Ready >>> -------- >>> >>> Comment: >>> -------- >>> >>> Although I found some issues, this is a good document which is mainly >>> very clear. I was not in a position to check IEEE802.15.4 details. >>> >>> It's too late now, but judging by the shepherd's writeup, this draft >>> would have been an excellent candidate for an Implementation Status >>> section under RFC 6982. >>> >>> Major Issues: >>> ------------- >>> >>> I was very confused for several pages until I went back and read this >>> again: >>> >>>> This specification defines operational parameters and procedures >>> for >>>> a minimal mode of operation to build a 6TiSCH Network. The >>> 802.15.4 >>>> TSCH mode, the 6LoWPAN framework, RPL [RFC6550], and its Objective >>>> Function 0 (OF0) [RFC6552], are used unmodified. >>> >>> Then I realised that there is some very basic information missing at >>> the beginning >>> of the Introduction. That little phrase "the 6LoWPAN framework" seems >>> to be the clue. >>> What is the 6LoWPAN framework? Which RFCs? I'm guessing it would be >>> RFC4944, RFC6282 >>> and RFC6775, but maybe not. In any case, the very first sentence of >>> the Introduction >>> really needs to be a short paragraph that explains in outline, with >>> citations, how a >>> 6TiSCH network provides IPv6 connectivity over NBMA. With that, the >>> rest of the document >>> makes sense. >>> >>> But related to that, the Abstract is confusing in the same way: >>> >>>> Abstract >>>> >>>> This document describes a minimal mode of operation for a 6TiSCH >>>> Network. It provides IPv6 connectivity over a Non-Broadcast >>> Multi- >>>> Access (NBMA) mesh... >>> >>> "It" is confusing since it seems to refer to this document, which >>> hardly >>> mentions IPv6 connectivity. I suggest s/It/6TiSCH/. >>> >>> As far as I know a Security Considerations section is still always >>> required. I understand >>> that this document discusses security in detail, but that doesn't >>> cancel the >>> requirement (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3552#section-5). >>> >>> Minor issues: >>> ------------- >>> >>>> 4.4. Timeslot Timing >>> ... >>>> The RX node needs to send the first bit after the >>>> SFD of the MAC acknowledgment exactly tsTxAckDelay after the end >>> of >>>> the last byte of the received packet. >>> >>> I don't understand "exactly". Nothing is exact - there is always clock >>> jitter. >>> Shouldn't there be a stated tolerance rather than "exactly"? >>> >>>> 4.5. Frame Formats >>>> >>>> The following sections detail the RECOMMENDED format of link-layer >>>> frames of different types. A node MAY use a different formats >>> (bit >>>> settings, etc)... >>> >>> Doesn't this create an interoperability issue for independent >>> implementations? >>> How can you mix and match implementations that use variants of the >>> frame format? >>> This seems particularly strange: >>> >>>> The IEEE802.15.4 header of BEACON, DATA and ACKNOWLEDGMENT frames >>>> SHOULD include the Source Address field and the Destination >>> Address >>>> field. >>> >>> How will it work if some nodes omit the addresses? >>> >>>> 4.6. Link-Layer Security >>> ... >>>> For early interoperability testing, value 36 54 69 53 43 48 20 6D >>> 69 >>>> 6E 69 6D 61 6C 31 35 ("6TiSCH minimal15") MAY be used for K1. >>> >>> Shouldn't this also say that this value MUST NOT be used in >>> operational networks? >>> >>> Nits: >>> ----- >>> >>>> 1. Introduction >>>> >>>> A 6TiSCH Network provides IPv6 connectivity... >>> >>> I would expect to see a reference to [RFC2460] right there. >>> >>> Outdated reference: draft-ietf-6lo-paging-dispatch has been published >>> as RFC 8025 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> _______________________________________ >> >> Thomas Watteyne, PhD >> Research Scientist & Innovator, Inria >> Sr Networking Design Eng, Linear Tech >> Founder & co-lead, UC Berkeley OpenWSN >> Co-chair, IETF 6TiSCH >> >> www.thomaswatteyne.com >> _______________________________________ >> > > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
