Hi Paul, Many thanks for your thoughtful review!
Cheers, Shwetha and Carles (6lo WG chairs) On Mon, 6 May 2024 at 23:35, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > Hi Luigi, > > Below I've edited out all the stuff that is settled and irrelevant to > remaining issues. Then I inserted my comments. > > On 5/6/24 7:17 AM, Luigi IANNONE wrote: > > >>>> 2) ISSUE: Working of OT network domains > ... > > [LI] You got it right. What about the following (re-using part of your > wording): > > > > * In an idealized PASA-based OT domain, a leaf-node could be a field > > device (sensor or actuator) that always connects to PLC serving as > > last node forwarding traffic to/from the leaves, i.e. sensors and > > actuators. Hence, the PLC will work as a PASA Router only > > for field devices supporting IPv6. For field devices not > supporting IPv6 > > the PLC will assign PASA addresses for each of them, and then > translate > > between IPv6 packets and the device protocol, making the devices > > appear as PASA Hosts within the enclosing PASA Domain. > > > > [LI] Clear enough? > > Yes, good. > > >>>> 4) ISSUE: Address Assignment > > > [LI] May be we should add a sentence after the FCFS policy. Something > like: > > > > "Some deployments may have tighter constrains on the router selection, > but enforcing such selection is beyond the scope of this document." > > > > What do you think? > > I don't know. This is outside my depth unless I study up on the other > documents in your WG. I looked briefly but it seemed like more than I > wanted to take on for this review. > > By now I think you understand my concern. I leave it to you to decide if > this is covered adequately among all your documents. > > >>>> 5) ISSUE: Root Node Address > ... > > [LI] Now I see you point. The reason why the root address is always 1 is > because of the question in issue 8. > > In this way it is very easy to unpad the address, just drop all the > leading zeros. > > I think is worth to add text to better highlight the exception of why > the root, while being a router, has the address 1. > > We will add a sentence. > > Sounds good. Make it clear that the root node address MUST be "1". > > >>>> 6) ISSUE: Tree Address Assignment Function > ... > >> But it raises different questions in my mind: > >> > >> If all of these devices are stateful then there may be situations when a > >> device is reset and forgets all that state. This is fine if every device > >> in the domain is reset simultaneously. But if a subset of devices is > >> reset there will be problems: > >> > >> If a host is reset it will request a new address from its old router. > >> (Assuming it chooses the same router.) its old address becomes an > >> orphan. Or is the router supposed to recognize the host and send back > >> the old address? > > > > [LI] Good point. This must be covered in the GAAO document. The router > needs to store address assignments in non-volatile memory. > > IIUC you are saying that these issues are the responsibility of a > different document. I leave that for you to sort out. > > >> If a router is reset, then it won't remember any of its children, but > >> they will still remember it and won't have any reason to reconnect. > > > > [LI] Not sure I understand you here. Children can still re-register > their address since they remember. > > [LI] > > I didn't see re-registering mentioned in this doc. Again I assume you > have that covered in other documents. > > I think I am done now. I hope I've been more of a help than a pain. > > The usual policies for genart review assignments will probably mean I'll > be back for a later review. See you then. :-) > > Thanks, > Paul > >
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list -- 6lo@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to 6lo-le...@ietf.org
