Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-compound-ack-14

Request Review of draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-compound-ack
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Last Call Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2023-03-15
Requested 2023-02-23
Authors Juan-Carlos Zúñiga , Carles Gomez , Sergio Aguilar , Laurent Toutain , Sandra Cespedes , Diego S. Wistuba La Torre
I-D last updated 2023-03-14
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -14 by Ebben Aries (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -13 by Brian Weis (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -12 by Tianran Zhou (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -14 by Wesley Eddy (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Wesley Eddy
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-compound-ack by Transport Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 14 (document currently at 17)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2023-03-14
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC if you reply to or forward this review.

In general, the document seems to be clear and well written.  I did not find
any technical issues or corrections to note.

- The reason for using this is explained as reducing the number of ACK
transmissions.  Is there a corresponding cost (e.g. slower recovery from
losses) that should also be mentioned so that the tradeoffs are clear? - The
shepherd writeup mentions a Sigfox implementation.  It would be of interest to
note whether compound ACKs have been found to be beneficial in practice or note
any quantification of the expected benefits.  Of course these are heavily
dependent on the specific LPWAN and configuration, so it would just be
anecdotal data. - There are older RFCs from the PILC working group that provide
advice for subnetwork design (e.g. RFC 3819).  I was surprised not to find that
cited here as a reference, as it might be important regarding tuning of
configuration parameters.

Very minor comments:
- Section 4 has "Examples" (plural) in the title, however, it really only
contains a single example.  It could be "Example" instead.