Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery-12

2020-02-19 Thread Alissa Cooper
Peter, thanks for your review. Pascal, thanks for your response. I entered a No 
Objection ballot.

Best,
Alissa


> On Feb 18, 2020, at 10:21 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)  
> wrote:
> 
> Many thanks for your review Peter!
> 
> I applied all your typo fix suggestions that are not discussed below.
> 
>> Page 14, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence: change “a same” to one of “any”, “any
>> single”, or something similar.  These suggestions are based on the assumption
>> that fragments from disparate datagrams are not intermingled, otherwise
>> you’ll need some other description of what you want to do in order to allow
>> fragments to get a few hops away.
> 
> You're right, that can be any frame. Proposed change to:
> "
> When a single frequency is used by contiguous hops, the sender should insert 
> a delay between the frames (e.g., frames carrying fragments) that are sent to 
> the same next hop. The delay should cover multiple transmissions so as to let 
> a frame progress a few hops and avoid hidden terminal issues.
> "
> 
>> Page 18, section 7.1, inter-frame gap, 2nd sentence: change “a same” to “the
>> same” in both places in the sentence.  Overall, I couldn’t quite parse this
>> sentence.  “may be subject to receive while transmitting” left me guessing as
>> to what exactly you wanted to convey here.  Please rewrite this sentence.
> 
> Actually I did a few lines ahead but forgot to erase those : ) There's also 
> section 4.2.
> So why nit just erase the weird sentence? We then get
> 
> "
>   An implementation must control the rate at which it sends packets
>   over the same path to allow the next hop to forward a packet before
>   it gets the next.  In a wireless network that uses the same frequency
>   along a path, more time must be inserted to avoid hidden terminal
>   issues between fragments (more in Section 4.2).
> 
>   This is controlled by the following parameter:
> 
>   inter-frame gap:  Indicates the minimum amount of time between
>  transmissions.  The inter-frame gap protects the propagation of
>  one transmission before the next one is triggered and creates a
>  duty cycle that controls the ratio of air time and memory in
>  intermediate nodes that a particular datagram will use.
> "
> 
> 
> 
>> Page 19, OptFragmentSize
> Delete “of” before “the Hop Limit”.
> 
> Unsure: The Hop Limit is a field that can be compressed at the first hop and 
> will need to be expanded later.
> 
> 
> Many thanks for your care, Peter. I looked up and fixed other occurrences of 
> the similar French and I hope the doc reads better now. 
> 
> If you agree with the points above I'll submit a new round asap, maybe 
> together with another review.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Pascal
> 
> ___
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art


Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery-12

2020-02-18 Thread Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Many thanks for your review Peter!

I applied all your typo fix suggestions that are not discussed below.

> Page 14, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence: change “a same” to one of “any”, “any
> single”, or something similar.  These suggestions are based on the assumption
> that fragments from disparate datagrams are not intermingled, otherwise
> you’ll need some other description of what you want to do in order to allow
> fragments to get a few hops away.

You're right, that can be any frame. Proposed change to:
"
 When a single frequency is used by contiguous hops, the sender should insert a 
delay between the frames (e.g., frames carrying fragments) that are sent to the 
same next hop. The delay should cover multiple transmissions so as to let a 
frame progress a few hops and avoid hidden terminal issues.
"

> Page 18, section 7.1, inter-frame gap, 2nd sentence: change “a same” to “the
> same” in both places in the sentence.  Overall, I couldn’t quite parse this
> sentence.  “may be subject to receive while transmitting” left me guessing as
> to what exactly you wanted to convey here.  Please rewrite this sentence.

Actually I did a few lines ahead but forgot to erase those : ) There's also 
section 4.2.
So why nit just erase the weird sentence? We then get

"
   An implementation must control the rate at which it sends packets
   over the same path to allow the next hop to forward a packet before
   it gets the next.  In a wireless network that uses the same frequency
   along a path, more time must be inserted to avoid hidden terminal
   issues between fragments (more in Section 4.2).

   This is controlled by the following parameter:

   inter-frame gap:  Indicates the minimum amount of time between
  transmissions.  The inter-frame gap protects the propagation of
  one transmission before the next one is triggered and creates a
  duty cycle that controls the ratio of air time and memory in
  intermediate nodes that a particular datagram will use.
"



> Page 19, OptFragmentSize
Delete “of” before “the Hop Limit”.

Unsure: The Hop Limit is a field that can be compressed at the first hop and 
will need to be expanded later.


Many thanks for your care, Peter. I looked up and fixed other occurrences of 
the similar French and I hope the doc reads better now. 

If you agree with the points above I'll submit a new round asap, maybe together 
with another review.

All the best,

Pascal

___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art