|
Oops, the diagram is like this…
Shuping -----Original Message----- Hi Pascal, I am glad that the review is useful. I was thinking about a functional diagram, something like the below.
I am really not good at drawing, just for your reference. :) Anyway this is not a big deal. Your updated diagram is also good. It is up to you.
+------------------+ | 6LBR |
| (Root) | | (Registrar) | +-------------------+ / \ / \ +------------------+ +------------------+ | 6LR | | 6LR | | (RPL Router) | | (RPL Router) | +-------------------+ LLN +-------------------+ register /|\ /|\ register L2 NS (EARO) | | L2 NS (EARO) +-----------------+ +-----------------+
| 6LN | | 6LN | | (RPL leaf L) | | (RPL leaf L) | +------------------+ +------------------+ BR, Shuping From: Pascal Thubert [mailto:pascal.thubert@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2025 4:46 PM To: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) <pengshuping@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc:
rtg-dir@xxxxxxxx;
6lo@xxxxxxxx;
draft-ietf-6lo-prefix-registration.all@xxxxxxxx;
last-call@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Rtgdir ietf last call review of draft-ietf-6lo-prefix-registration-10 Hello Shuping :) Many thanks for your review! I pushed to Github the proposed whanges, please see IETF LV comments by Shuping Peng
· pthubert/6lo-prefix-registration@6703f50 For details, please see below: Summary: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication. Comments: Overall this draft is well-written. : ) Major Issues: No major issues found. Minor Issues: 2.4 New terms Merge/merging "merging" is not shown in any other place within the draft. Maybe it as a new term is not needed here? The verb merge (in the merges form) is used quite a bit. To your point I removed 'merging' from the definition. 3.1 1) Figure 1 is still not very clear although I noticed that the authors had updated it in the latest version. Instead of using a illustrative diagram, I wonder whether a diagram with the relevant elements named in
this draft and the connections in-between would be much clearer. The drawing was indeed improved based on comments and names added. Not sure what diagram you have in mind? 2) 'z' and '|' meant different types of connections? '|' is not explained. Removed the z, the type of link is not that relevant anyway 3) "Access Point" in this figure is not mentioned anywhere in this subsection. also removed 4) The caption of Figure 1 is "Wireless Mesh". How about "RPL-Based Route-Over LLN"? Great suggestion, applied. 5. " - to be confirmed by IANA - and updated by RFC Editor if needed. " Would this part be better to be marked as "to be deleted before publication"? Since this is a Last call review, I mentioned about this. The point is the location in the figure may vary and need updating; but no worries, we'll do the needful things with the editor :) " New Option Field: X 1-bit flag: "Registration for prefixes Supported" " Should this 'X' be 'F'? oups, thanks for catching this one Nits: 4. s/This specification Amends/This specification amends 6. s/This specification Extends/This specification extends Actually not, see section 2.1 7. s/it SHOULD register all those prefixes with on all interfaces from which it might be needed to relay traffic to that prefix./it SHOULD register all those prefixes on all interfaces from which it might be needed to
relay traffic to that prefix. fixed 10. s/This specification Extends/This specification extends same as above 11. s/if the values of the ROVR they use is known in advance/if the values of the ROVR they use are known in advance applied Again, many thanks. -- Pascal |
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
