Subject: [6lo] TSV ART early review of draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:34:12 -0700

Hi, all,

I've reviewed this document as part of the Transport Area Review Team's
(TSVART) ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments
were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied
to the document's authors for their information and to allow them to
address any issues raised. When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the
authors should consider this review together with any other last-call
comments they receive. Please always CC ​[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> if you reply to or forward this review.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule 
Transmission of IPv6 Packets over DECT Ultra Low Energy
Reviewer: J. Touch
Review Date: Sept 26, 2016
IETF Last Call Date: TBD

Summary: The document impacts transport protocols only indirectly
through its need to support the minimum required IPv6 MTU, but is
imprecise about the corresponding details of those requirements.

Major issues: There are no major TSV issues in this document.

Minor issues: The following modification should be considered for
increased clarity:

Sec 2.4 indicates that the default MTU for DECT UL is 500 octets and
does note that:

   ...In order to
   support complete IP packets, the DLC layer of DECT ULE SHALL per this
   specification be configured with a MTU size that fits the
   requirements from IPv6 data packets, hence [RFC4944 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4944>] fragmentation/
   reassembly is not required.

It would be useful to update this text to be more clear about this
referring to IPv6 only (as per the title of the doc), to indicate the
minimum MTU, and to explain the reference to RFC4944:

    ...In order to support IPv6, the DLC layer of DECT ULE MUST be
    configured with a MTU of at least 1280B to avoid the need for
    an RFC4944-style shim layer for additional support for larger
    payload fragmentation/reassembly [RFC4944]."

---

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:35:19 -0700

CC'ing tsv-art...

On 9/26/2016 2:34 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
> Hi, all,
>
> I've reviewed this document as part of the Transport Area Review
> Team's (TSVART) ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These
> comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but
> are copied to the document's authors for their information and to
> allow them to address any issues raised. When done at the time of IETF
> Last Call, the authors should consider this review together with any
> other last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
> ​[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> if you reply to or forward
> this review.
>