Hi Carles, Thank you very much for your review. Please find the my comments inline.
Ciao L. > -----Original Message----- > From: 6lo <6lo-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Carles Gomez Montenegro > Sent: Thursday, 21 July 2022 14:47 > To: 6lo@ietf.org > Subject: [6lo] Few comments on the NSA drafts > > Dear NSA authors, > > Please find below a few comments/questions on your NSA drafts. > > 1.- draft-li-6lo-native-short-address-03 > **************************************** > > - In the paragraph before Figure 2, the draft refers to "LOWPAN_IPHC's 7 > octets". The text reads as if that (7 octets) was the only possible compressed > IPv6 header size when using RFC 6282. However, with RFC 6282, it is possible > to fully elide source and destination addresses (leading to a 3-byte > compressed header, when context is used), and it is also possible to have > compressed IPv6 header sizes greater than 7 bytes, depending on how > header compression is used. Thanks for pointing this out. In the next revision we will include this consideration. > > - In Figure 2 there is a header field called "AM", whereas it is "MA" in > Figure > 6. Just mistyping. Will be fixed in the next revision. > > > 2.- draft-li-nsa-reliability-00 > ******************************* > > - In section 3, the draft states: > > "In the specific case of NSA > [I-D.li-6lo-native-short-address], all nodes, except the root, have > at least one secondary parent" > > Is this a feature of NSA enforced by design? If talking about "parent" it is because the root by definition has no parent node. However, your comment make us realize that we did not emphasize enough that for reliability there are at least two root nodes. Thanks. We will improve the language in the next revision so to make clear the reliability from the root node perspective. > > It might be helpful to discuss in the document(s) how scenarios > without a secondary parent are supported. For example, a string > topology, such as: > > A ----- B ----- C ----- D > I would argue that in such topology there is no reliability ;-) Let me try to understand better your point. Do you mean a "logical" strip topology? Implying that the underlaying physical topology has redundant links? Thanks Ciao L. > > Thanks, > > Carles (as a WG participant) > > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > 6lo@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
