Subject: [6lo] lobac draft

From: peter van der Stok <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:58:05 +0200

Hi Kerry et al.

Thanks for submitting the draft. The lowpan header for a packet 
transported over a slow and low cost wire is very useful.

After reading the lobac draft I have a few editorial comments.

- Introduction: explains why MS/TP differs from LoWPANs in detail, but 
is vague about the advantage. I suggest to use from section 4: The 
relatively low data rates of MS/TP make header compression relevant to 
reduce transmission time, given the small expected payload sizes.

Section 1.2: Define LoBAC node?

Section 1.3, why are slave devices excluded even though they receive 
packets?
May be you mean that Slave nodes do not participate in the sending of 
master control messages?

Section 3 "The method of assigning a node address is outside the scope 
of this document". You may want to use <link-layer address> instead of 
<address>.

Section 3: In the phrase: "A Source Address of 255 MUST NOT be used. 
MS/TP does not support multicast, therefore all IPv6 multicast packets 
MUST be sent as link-level broadcasts", I suggest to remove: "MS/TP does 
not support multicast, therefore", and start with: "All IPv6 ....

Page 7: to <provided> general purpose extensibility. To <provide> ….

Section 5.1 The LoBAC Dispatch.. change to: The LoBAC IPHC Dispatch

NALP: Non-LoBAC protocols that wish to coexist…  should that be 
Non-LoBAC IPv6 protocols…?

Hope this helps a bit.

Greetings,

peter

-- 
Peter van der Stok
vanderstok consultancy
mailto: [email-masked]
www: www.vanderstok.org
tel NL: +31(0)492474673     F: +33(0)966015248