Hello Shuping :) Many thanks for your review!
I pushed to Github the proposed whanges, please see IETF LV comments by Shuping Peng ยท pthubert/6lo-prefix-registration@6703f50 <https://github.com/pthubert/6lo-prefix-registration/commit/6703f50e5d169680d14e6699b65c00797397d292> For details, please see below: > Summary: > I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be > resolved > before publication. > > Comments: > Overall this draft is well-written. > > : ) Major Issues: > > No major issues found. > > Minor Issues: > > 2.4 New terms > > Merge/merging > > "merging" is not shown in any other place within the draft. Maybe it as a > new > term is not needed here? > > The verb merge (in the merges form) is used quite a bit. To your point I removed 'merging' from the definition. > 3.1 > > 1) Figure 1 is still not very clear although I noticed that the authors had > updated it in the latest version. Instead of using a illustrative diagram, > I > wonder whether a diagram with the relevant elements named in this draft > and the > connections in-between would be much clearer. > The drawing was indeed improved based on comments and names added. Not sure what diagram you have in mind? > > 2) 'z' and '|' meant different types of connections? '|' is not explained. > Removed the z, the type of link is not that relevant anyway > > 3) "Access Point" in this figure is not mentioned anywhere in this > subsection. > also removed > > 4) The caption of Figure 1 is "Wireless Mesh". How about "RPL-Based > Route-Over > LLN"? > > Great suggestion, applied. > 5. > > " > - to be confirmed by IANA > > - and updated by RFC Editor if needed. > > " > Would this part be better to be marked as "to be deleted before > publication"? > Since this is a Last call review, I mentioned about this. > The point is the location in the figure may vary and need updating; but no worries, we'll do the needful things with the editor :) > > " > New Option Field: > > X 1-bit flag: "Registration for prefixes Supported" > " > Should this 'X' be 'F'? > oups, thanks for catching this one > > Nits: > > 4. > s/This specification Amends/This specification amends > > 6. > s/This specification Extends/This specification extends > Actually not, see section 2.1 > > 7. > s/it SHOULD register all those prefixes with on all interfaces from which > it > might be needed to relay traffic to that prefix./it SHOULD register all > those > prefixes on all interfaces from which it might be needed to relay traffic > to > that prefix. > > fixed > 10. > s/This specification Extends/This specification extends > same as above > > 11. > s/if the values of the ROVR they use is known in advance/if the values of > the > ROVR they use are known in advance > > applied Again, many thanks. -- Pascal
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
