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

From: Xavi Vilajosana Guillen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 12:45:59 +0200

Dear Alvaro,

we published a new versoin of the draft covering the responses to your
questions as detailed in the answers provided in the last emails.

thanks for your reviews.
Xavi

2018-04-05 11:32 GMT+02:00 Xavi Vilajosana Guillen <[email-masked]>:

> 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.
>
>
> 2018-04-03 10:18 GMT+02:00 Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>:
>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>>
>
>> 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."
>>
>>
>>>
>
>>
>>> (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?
>>
>>
>>>
>
>> XV: The SF is the user of that placeholders. If both sides implement the
>>> SF both sides will understand the
>>
>> new definition.
>>
>>
>>>
>
>> (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
>>
>>
>>>
>
>> 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
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Av+Carl+Friedrich+Gauss+5,+B3+Building+08860+Castelldefels+(Barcelona).+Catalonia.+Spain&entry=gmail&source=g>
> 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona). Catalonia. Spain
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Av+Carl+Friedrich+Gauss+5,+B3+Building+08860+Castelldefels+(Barcelona).+Catalonia.+Spain&entry=gmail&source=g>
> 
>

-- 
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