Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-lorawan-13
review-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-lorawan-13-tsvart-lc-swett-2020-11-04-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-lorawan |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 14) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Transport Area Review Team (tsvart) | |
| Deadline | 2020-10-21 | |
| Requested | 2020-09-18 | |
| Authors | Olivier Gimenez , Ivaylo Petrov | |
| Draft last updated | 2020-11-04 | |
| Completed reviews |
Iotdir Telechat review of -10
by
Rahul Jadhav
(diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -13 by Ian Swett (diff) Genart Last Call review of -10 by Robert Sparks (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Ian Swett |
| State | Completed | |
| Review |
review-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-lorawan-13-tsvart-lc-swett-2020-11-04
|
|
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/R7zZBuWqGliPI502q5EszVGdxcU | |
| Reviewed revision | 13 (document currently at 14) | |
| Result | Ready with Nits | |
| Completed | 2020-11-04 |
review-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-lorawan-13-tsvart-lc-swett-2020-11-04-00
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 tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review. This document looked to be in good shape, but I'm quite unfamiliar with SCHC, so hopefully others who are have also reviewed this. An overall comment is that this document could use more cross-refs to specific sections of RFC8724 Some nits below: Section 2 o SCHC gateway: It corresponds to the LoRaWAN Application Server. It manages translation between IPv6 network and the Network Gateway (LoRaWAN Network Server). Nit: "It corresponds to" seems unnecessary and isn't parallel with other definitions. How about: "The LoRaWAN Application Server that manages ..."? Section 4.3 As SCHC defines its own acknowledgment mechanisms, SCHC does not require to use LoRaWAN Confirmed frames. This sentence is awkward. Do you mean ", SCHC does not require the use of LoRaWAN Confirmed Frames". Also, it may be worth adding cross-references to the appropriate section of RFC8376 for all of these frame types? Section 5.1 A fragmented datagram with application payload transferred from device to Network Gateway, is called uplink fragmented datagram. It "Is called an uplink fragmented datagram."?