Subject: Re: [IoT-DIR] Iotdir early review of draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-08

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 16:58:09 +0200

Hi Samita,

Thanks for your review, but not sure why you say early review in the
subject? I send my review earlier [1] but got [2]. However, I support your
comments 100% while don't support some replies in the editor's [2].

 I tried in my review in the IETF Last call but not much reasonable
replies, even the WG chair said [3]  in one reply to my review that they
don't take my comments because IESG was already processing draft, I was
earlier than your comment, but was surprised that IESG had no much involve.

The other problem IMHO is that our IESG may not be following procedures (or
maybe one new comer may say the ietf is not serious, which I said sometime
maybe). The IESG should consider individual comments mentioned in the RFC,
but I got no respond from IESG/ADs. Is that methodology changed maybe?

In my previous experience with the serious-IETF, the past IESG were
responding to me, as I can get a respond from the AD saying ok, I will let
the author respond, but this IESG/ADs are not replying. I will say most of
our RFCs may be not easy to read.

AB

[1]  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lp-wan/current/msg01227.html
[2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lp-wan/current/msg01230.html
[3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lp-wan/current/msg01232.html

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:08 PM, Samita Chakrabarti <samitac.ietf at
gmail.com> wrote:

> Reviewer: Samita Chakrabarti
> Review result: Almost Ready
>
> Hi Stephen,
> First of all, thank you for writing up the comprehensive overview of LPWAN
> technologies and their characteristics. I have read the document and the
> following are my comments for IOT-DIR review.
>
> General : Please fix the formatting and paging of the document. Some of the
> figures are split between pages. The document uses loads of acronyms from
> multiple technologies. A glossary of terms are useful for reference in the
> beginning of the decument. Section 2:  :”Note that some…. Of this
> document” –
> please make sure that only RFC and WG approved documents are referenced in
> the
> reference section and remove any reference that are still individual
> document
> at the time of publication/IESG review.
>
> Section 2.4 – Please move the acknowledgement texts to the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
> section at the end of the draft Section 2.1.2 – Table 1 records data rate
> for
> LORA .3 – 5Kbps. For 868MHZ band; Later Table 2 records 50,000 kbps data
> rate
> for the same band.  Is this a typo ? If not please provide explanation
> Table 4
> and page 9 talks about DEVEUI – how are they obtained/configured/assigned
> on
> the end-device? I suggest adding definition of terms for each technology
> at the
> beginning of the document for easy reference. Page 12 calls out PSM, eDRX
> etc.
> – please add their definition in the definition of terms Fig 3: labels eNB
> but
> the document talks about eNodeB. Please make them consistent
>
> Page 14 – describes control function and RRC function. Please provide the
> RRC
> description/definition when RRC is first referenced in page 12. [ move this
> description to earlier sections ] Also notr that section 2.2.2 is extremely
> long; I would suggest breaking the section into different subsections such
> as
> “network components”, “Network Architecture”, “Control plane” etc. Remove
> section 3 and combine the content of section 3 with section 2.1.2. They
> seem to
> have duplicate information. Fig 8 may be moved in section 2.1.2  as well.
> Combine fig 9 with fig 1.
>
> Pg 26 – refers to I.D-hong-6lo-use-cases – but I did not find it in the
> reference section. Please fix. What is “Very low layer tow payload…. “ –
> please
> fix Note ID-hong-6lo-use-case document not only support 6lowpan, but it
> supports 6lo use-cases as well. Section 4.2,2 – The statement  Header
> compression and privacy address IID is not quite true. There is guideline
> for
> supporting privacy in 6lo. Please refer to RFC 8065. Section 4.3 -implies
> that
> 6lowpan and 6lo support star topologies only. That is NOT true. Both
> 6lowpan
> and 6lo can support both star and mesh topologies. Besides 6lo supports
> many
> different constrained networks including NFC and PLC. Please fix the
> section
> 4.3 .
>
> Thanks,
> -Samita
>
> _______________________________________________
> IoT-DIR mailing list
> IoT-DIR at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-dir
>