Thanks for the suggestion! I will apply those changes in next the version of MSF.
Tengfei
On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 11:07 PM Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Tengfei: Thank you for getting back to me and your time to address my review.The paragraph you suggest is very much improved, with one small change that will make it even better, as described next.In the last sentence of your proposed change, s/The algorithm of limiting the/However, any such algorithm of limiting the/Once again, thanks.- vijayOn Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 7:35 AM Tengfei Chang <tengfei.chang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:H Vijay,Thanks a lot for the review!For the major comment, what we want to explain here is that there are multiple way to limit traffic to lighten the collisions.Trickle timer is one of those algorithm for that purpose.What "This behavior is out of the scope for MSF." means here actually is that we don't want to limit the various ways of limiting traffic by just using Trickle timer.The implementer can design their own algorithm to mitigate the traffic collisions on minimal cell.The paragraph is rephrased as following:To ensure there is enough bandwidth available on the minimal cell, a node implementing MSF SHOULD enforce some rules for limiting the traffic of broadcast frames.For example, the overall broadcast traffic among the node and its neighbors SHOULD NOT exceed 1/3 of the bandwidth of minimal cell.One of the algorithm met the rule is the Trickle timer defined in [RFC6206] which is applied on DIO messages [RFC6550].The algorithm of limiting the broadcast traffic to meet those rules is implementation-specific and is out of the scope of MSF.Does this version sound clear for you?TengfeiOn Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 5:43 PM Vijay Gurbani via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani
Review result: Almost Ready
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
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-6tisch-msf-10
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: 2020-02-14
IETF LC End Date: 2020-02-27
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
Summary: The draft is almost ready to be published as a Proposed Standard.
Major issues: 1
Minor issues: 0
Nits/editorial comments: 1
Sn below stands for "Section n".
Major:
- S2, paragraph 4: The text says that "...a node implementing MSF SHOULD enforce
some rules for limiting the traffic broadcast frames...". It goes ahead and
gives an example of the "Trickle" operation, but in the very next sentence, it
says, "This behavior is out of the scope for MSF." I am confused since the
paragraph does not seem self consistent.
The paragraph is asking the implementor to use normative strength (SHOULD) to
enforce "some" rules, but does not enumerate the rules. To be fair, the
paragraph gives one example of such a rule, but immediately invalidates that
example! What would an implementor do? Where would he or she go to get an
idea of "some" rules that can be used to limit the traffic of broadcast
frames? Perhaps some reference could be provided to a document that contains
these rules?
Nits:
- S6: s/It is calculated/The timeout value is calculated/
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
6tisch@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
--——————————————————————————————————————Dr. Tengfei, ChangPostdoctoral Research Engineer, Inria——————————————————————————————————————
——————————————————————————————————————
Dr. Tengfei, Chang
Postdoctoral Research Engineer, Inria
——————————————————————————————————————
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
