Hi Robert,
Thanks for your useful comment and guidance.
The multi-cell scenario, that the section is addressing, will probably only be
used rare cases - currently it is definitely not the primary use case.
I believe that even without the reference to 6BBR the draft has all the
information to ensure interoperability between DECT ULE devices. The sentence
is rather to remind implementers of "backbone" infrastructure of the guidance
in ietf-6lo-backbone-router.
I am fine with current wording, but for me it is also OK changing the wording
if that makes it clearer - any guidance from AD?
Thanks and best regards,
Jens
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjsparks(_at_)nostrum(_dot_)com]
Sent: 20. december 2016 15:38
To: Jens Toftgaard Petersen <jtp(_at_)rtx(_dot_)dk>; General Area Review Team
<gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
6lo(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule(_dot_)all(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule-08
On 12/20/16 6:26 AM, Jens Toftgaard Petersen wrote:
Hi Robert,
Thanks for your clarification of normative references to work in progress.
I would prefer to keep the reference as in the updated version -09:
"The FPs in such a scenario should behave as Backbone
Routers (6BBR) as defined in [I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router]."
Are you OK with that?
Maybe. I'm not the expert here, so all I can do is ask (what are hopefully
useful) questions:
Here's one way to help figure this out: Would you be ok deleting the sentence
and the reference? (I'm not asking you to do that, just to consider what it
would mean to the resulting set of implementations if you did.)
If you think people will build the right software with that sentence missing,
and you'll get the interoperability you're aiming for, then it's fine as an
Informative reference. This would be the case if what you're really doing with
that sentence is saying "other documents in the base protocol this is building
on require you to behave this way, we're just pointing at that here to remind
you of that fact".
If that's going to leave implementers guessing at what their implementation is
supposed to do, and interoperability will suffer, then it's normative. (What
you're really doing with that sentence is telling the implementers something
_new_ - that they SHOULD behave as a 6BBR in this situation, and nothing else
tells them to do that, and the reference is here to tell them how to do that).
Alternatively, if it's just fine that some large subset _doesn't_ behave as a
6BBR, then its fine the way it is. You might consider saying "One good way for
an FP can behave in such scenarios is as a Backbone Router..." instead, to make
it clearer that this is just informational guidance rather than something that
would affect interoperability in the resulting implementation base.
Either way, I'm happy leaving it up to you and your ADs at this point.
Best regards,
Jens
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjsparks(_at_)nostrum(_dot_)com]
Sent: 17. december 2016 00:31
To: Jens Toftgaard Petersen <jtp(_at_)rtx(_dot_)dk>; General Area Review Team
<gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
6lo(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule(_dot_)all(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule-08
Just one comment at the end:
On 12/15/16 4:04 PM, Jens Toftgaard Petersen wrote:
Hi Robert,
Many thanks for your review. See my comments and answers inline below.
Best regards,
Jens
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjsparks(_at_)nostrum(_dot_)com]
Sent: 28. november 2016 21:22
To: General Area Review Team <gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
6lo(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule(_dot_)all(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule-08
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review
Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for
the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call
comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule-08
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 28 Nov 2016
IETF LC End Date: 02 Dec 2016
IESG Telechat date: 15 Dec 2016
Summary: Ready with nits
Nits/editorial comments:
First, forgive me, but I need to grumble a little bit:
The way this document approaches standardization makes me very uncomfortable.
The language is passive and relies on inference to the point that it risks
being vague. If this review were earlier in the document's life-cycle, I
would strongly suggest a complete restructure focusing on explicitly
specifying what the implementation is supposed to do.
But, the document has had several reviewers who didn't trip up on this
point, and the working group believes it is implementable, so I'm going to
set that aside and provide some concrete suggestions for removing some nits
from the existing text.
In document order:
1) In section 2.1 "This draft defines 6LoPAN as one of the possible
protocols to negotiate". That's not what this draft appears to do. Rather,
it defines behavior once this 6LoPAN over DECT ULE has been negotiated. Some
other document is defining the negotiation. I suggest replacing the sentence
with "[TS102.939-1] defines this negotiation and specifies an Application
Protocol Identifier of 0x06 for 6LowPAN. This document defines the behavior
of that Application Protocol".
[Jens]: Very good comment and suggested wording. Is implemented in
revision -09
2) The "not recommended" in the last sentence of 2.3 looks like it
should be a
2119 keyword (NOT RECOMMENDED). Similarly, the "shall" in the last sentence
of the first paragraph of 2.4 looks like it should be a SHALL (consider
using MUST instead).
[Jens]: I agree. Is implemented in revision -09
3) At the mention of LOWPAN_IPHC in the second paragraph of 2.4, consider
referencing RFC6282. It's not clear what the sentence is really trying to
convey, though. "all the requirements" is very vague - can you point to a
specific requirement list somewhere? "It is expected" implies that you
believe there's a chance that it might fail. Could the sentence be removed
(you cover this in 3.2) or be replaced with a more direct statement?
[Jens]: Agreed, is covered in section 3.2. Will be removed in
revision
-09
4) In the first section of 3.1 you have "The PP MUST be pageable".
Interestingly, the word "pageable" does not yet appear anywhere in the RFC
series. Please add a reference into the ETSI docs that will lead the reader
to a definition.
[Jens]: I don't think we have definition of the term we can refer to. Will
change to an explanatory wording in revision -09.
5) In the last paragraph of 3.2 (before 3.2.1), third sentence, you
introduce using the multi-link subnet approach. Please either add a
reference to
RFC4903
here, or point forward to section 3.3.
[Jens]: A reference to RF4903 added in revision -09
6) In section 3.2.1, third paragraph, you say addresses are derived "similar
to the guidance of [RFC4291]. I don't believe that is sufficient. Perhaps
you should say "following the guidance in Appendix A of [RFC4291]"?
[Jens]: Yes, your suggestion is more accurate. Will be done revision -09.
7) The last paragraph of 3.3 says "The FPs operation role in such scenario
are rather like Backbone Routers (6BBR) than 6LBR, as per
[I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router]." Is this trying to _specify_ the behavior of
the FP in this scenario? If not, it's unclear what the sentence is trying to
accomplish. If so, then the sentence should be "The FPs in such a scenario
behave as Backbone Routers (6BBR) as defined in
[I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router]." And that reference should be normative,
rather than informative.
[Jens]: I agree the wording is bit vague, but I believe we cannot
refer to work in progress [I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router] in a
normative way. I will tightening the wording revision -09
You _can_ refer normatively to a work in progress (and I think it may still
be the right thing to do here). The consequence is that this document would
stay in the RFC Editor's queue in a state known as MISSREF (for missing
reference) until the referenced document was approved for publication as an
RFC. You can see examples of this at work on
https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php.