Subject: [6tisch] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol-11: (with COMMENT)

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 01:18:01 -0700

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol-11: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) S3.2.2: "The value of SeqNum MUST be different at each new 6P Request
issued to the same neighbor." Should that be "...different...to the same
neighbor and SF"?  S3.4.6 talks about maintaining independent SeqNums per
neighbor, per SF.

(2) S3.2.3: "The SF MAY redefine the format and meaning of the CellOptions
field."  If the "RECOMMENDED" values are expected to be the default, how are
changes to the formatting/meaning communicated between A and B?

(3) S3.2.4: "The CellList is an opaque set of bytes, sent unmodified to the
SF."  Given that A and B don't really know what the contents of the CellList
are, or even if the "RECOMMENDED format" is followed, I don't see the need to
Normatively define the Cell Format.  IOW, s/RECOMMENDED/recommended

---

From: Xavi Vilajosana Guillen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 11:32:29 +0200

Dear Alvaro,

thanks so much for your comments and reviews. Find inline the responses to
your comments (prepended with XV:).
The proposed modifications will be published in a new version of the draft
covering all received reviews.

> XV: Yes should be different per neighbor and SF. The text will be updated
>> to say that as follow:
>
> " The value of SeqNum MUST be different at each new 6P Request issued to
>> the same neighbor and using the same SF."
>
>
>>

> XV: The SF is the user of that placeholders. If both sides implement the
>> SF both sides will understand the
>
> new definition.
>
>
>>

> XV: As per another review, we removed the term recommended and used the
>> term default format.
>
> In this manner we suggest a format that may be the generally used but it
>> can be changed
>
> if an SF needs so.
>
>
>
thanks again for your kind review.
Xavi

> _______________________________________________
> 6tisch mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>

-- 
Dr. Xavier Vilajosana
Wireless Networks Lab

*Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3)Professor*
(+34) 646 633 681
[email-masked] <[email-masked]>
http://xvilajosana.org
http://wine.rdi.uoc.edu
Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia
Av Carl Friedrich Gauss 5, B3 Building
08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona). Catalonia. Spain