Subject: [6lo] review of 6lo-blemesh

From: Rahul Jadhav <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 02:09:53 +0800

Dear authors,

Following are some review comments based on the latest updates to the document:
1. In the last revision, the draft mandated the use of NS(EARO) in
place NS(ARO). This change is not consistently applied in the
document. E.g., in section 3.3.3, the draft continues to use NS(ARO).
2. Section 3.3.3 also mandates the use of the 6CO option. 6CO option
may not be necessary in case a single prefix is used in the network.
The CID defaults to zero which results in the use of default prefix.
3. Section 3.3.3 the following statement is not clear, "In particular,
the latter comprise link-local interactions, non-link- local packet
transmissions originated and performed by a 6LN, and non-link-local
packets transmitted (but not necessarily originated) by the neighbor
of a 6LN to that 6LN."
4. I think the draft will benefit from a call flow diagram depicting
the node joining procedure.
   6LN ----(RS)-------> 6LR
   6LN <---(RA-PIO)---- 6LR
   6LN ----(NS-EARO)--> 6LR
   [Multihop DAD procedure]
   6LN <---(NA)--------  6LR
   6LN can now start acting as 6LR and advertise its own RA
   6LN ----(RA)--

Regards,
Rahul