Dear All, I would like to thank here to Eric, 6lo Chairs, 6lo WG to expedite reviews, comments and support the document.
Lastly, a big thank you and a virtual high-five š to Pascal for giving me the opportunity. Regards, AR On Mon, May 19, 2025, 18:47 Adnan Rashid <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Chairs and WG, > > I made some changes as suggested by Eric in the attached file. Please have > a look. > > I made changes to Table 1 from ARO to EARO, because ARO was suggested to > remove from the Acronyms (sec.2.3). and it was only used in Table 1 in the > document. Moreover, on the IANA website, it is also ARO ( > https://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/icmpv6-parameters.xhtml). > *Should I use ARO or EARO?* > > > [image: image.png] > >> >> Thank you for the prompt reaction. This is good except that I wonder why >> there is now a IEEE 802.15.4 reference as it is never used (I think) in >> this I-D. >> > > I removed the Acronym with its IEEE 802.15.4 reference, which was not > used actually in the text. > I later noticed that the terms used in this document and other ongoing WG > documents need to be corrected accordingly. > > *6LoWPAN: *IPv6 over Low-power Wireless Personal Area Networks > [RFC4919] > *LoWPAN*: Low-power Wireless Personal Area Network [RFC4944] > *LR-WPAN:* Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Network (IEEE Std. > 802.15.4) > > > >> Also, may I strongly suggest to reply on the 6LO mailing list as this is >> also a WG document ;-) >> > > Oops, I did not notice that my previous email was sent only to Eric. My > bad. > > > >> >> >> Please upload ASAP so that the IETF Last Call proceeds on the latest >> revision >> > > We will do it soon > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Adnan Rashid <[email protected]> >> *Date: *Monday, 19 May 2025 at 17:24 >> *To: *Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> >> *Subject: *Re: AD review of draft-ietf-6lo-updating-rfc-8928-03 >> >> Hi Eric, >> >> >> >> >> >> My comments are inline >> >> >> >> Thanks for this impromptu work, but really required. Letās make it one of >> the fastest to be approved IETF draft ! >> >> >> >> This is the usual AD review of the draft. Therefore, I request either a >> revised I-D addressing one point or a reply on the points ;-) Then, I am >> requesting the 2-week IETF Last Call before putting it on one IESG telechat. >> >> >> >> Carles, about the shepherd, you may want to modify the text about the >> downward reference as the prefix-delegation will be published as proposed >> standard, so , it is rather a nits-tool bug than a real downward reference. >> >> >> >> I am repeating my WGLC comment about section 2.3: please prune all unused >> acronyms, e.g., AP-ND (defined in 3 places but never used), DAD, ARO, ... >> >> Done >> >> >> >> Section 3, I am not a big fan of duplicating the definition of F & Prefix >> Length from the prefix-registration, I would prefer a reference to the >> other I-D (like the reference to RFC 8505). >> >> I had a detailed talk with Pascal to make things easy for the readers and >> implementers. This is the first time we are defining EARO for NS and NA and >> I insisted on explaining all fields of EARO at least the EARO flags. >> Honestly, I was not aware of the 2-bit reserved bits in the Status. Thanks >> to Pascal he explained me. >> >> >> >> Section 3, why writing āreser*V*edā for a r-flag? Also, this field is >> either 1-bit or 2-bit depending on the figure 1 or figure 2. Please update. >> >> >> >> .Done. >> >> >> >> >> >> I attached the file for your review. Please check. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Adnan >> > > > -- > Regards, > > Adnan >
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
