Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-04
review-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-04-iotdir-lc-robles-2019-11-26-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team Internet of Things Directorate (iotdir)
Deadline 2019-11-29
Requested 2019-11-04
Requested by Suresh Krishnan
Authors Thomas Watteyne, Pascal Thubert, Carsten Bormann
Draft last updated 2019-11-26
Completed reviews Intdir Last Call review of -04 by Dave Thaler (diff)
Iotdir Last Call review of -04 by Ines Robles (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Derrell Piper (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -09 by Sarah Banks (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -07 by Joerg Ott (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Francesca Palombini (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Ines Robles
State Completed
Review review-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-04-iotdir-lc-robles-2019-11-26
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/Iot-dir/KmfmlRjFct5_Gmi4XJPg4laqG0A
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 12)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2019-11-26

Review
review-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-04-iotdir-lc-robles-2019-11-26

Document: draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-04
Review result: Ready 
Review type: iotdir - Last Call review
Requested version for review: Current
Review Date: 2019-11-26
Reviewer: Ines Robles


Summary:

I believe the draft is technically good. This document is well written.

The document proposes a method to forwarding 6LoWPAN fragments in which a forwarder do not to have to reassemble each packet in its entirety before forwarding it, using the virtual Reassembly Buffer (VRB) implementation technique. VRB overcomes the limits of doing per-hop fragmentation and reassembly, such as Latency and Memory Management and Reliability. However, VRB presents limits such as Non-zero Packet Drop Probability, No Fragment Recovery and No Per-Fragment Routing.

I have few questions formulated at the end.

Major issues:Not Issues found

Minor issues: Not Issues found

Nits/editorial comments: Not Issues found

Questions:

1- In Section 1 that list the components of the reassembly buffer in node B, should it contains the datagram_offset as well? 

2-  In Section 1, where states: "...the actual packet data from the fragments received so far, in a form that makes it possible to detect...", I think it might be nice to add an example referring in which form, I mean: "...in a form (e.g. ....) that makes it possible....", what do you think?

3- draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-17, section 3.7 states some security vulnerabilities for IP fragmentation (The mentioned document as well defines virtual reassembly). Do you think that some of these vulnerabilities can be applied to 6LOWPAN fragments? For example, attacks based on predictable 6LOWPAN fragment identification values.

Thank you for this document,

Ines.