Dear Ben, see inline the responses to your comments. Thanks so much for the review. We will post a new version with the responses to your comments later today.
---- Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-20: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Substantive Comments -- Section 4, 2nd paragraph, "A node MAY use different values": Is that intended to weaken the RECOMMENDED in the previous sentence? (If not, then is the MAY needed at all?) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ANSWER: The sentence has been removed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 4.5.1, first 3 paragraphs: Why are the SHOULDs not MUSTs? Can you articulate why it might be reasonable to make other choices? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ANSWER: The 2 first SHOULD have been changed to MUST. The last SHOULD is kept as SHOULD as the PANID compression fields have different valid configurations that SHOULD be supported. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 4.5.2, 3rd paragraph, "It MAY be necessary..." That seems like a statement of fact. Please consider non-2119 language. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ANSWER: The sentence has been reworded as: "During the joining process, before secure connections to time parents have been created, a node MAY maintain synchronization using EBs." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- 4th paragraph: It's not clear to me if the MUST in "MUST be sent as per the 802.15.4 specification..." is constraining options from that specification, or just referring to requirements that exists in that specification. If the latter, please consider descriptive rather than normative language. (e.g. "The 802.15.4 specification requires...." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ANSWER: The text has been rephrased: The IEEE Std 802.15.4 specification requires EBs to be send in order to enable nodes to join the network. The EBs SHOULD carry the Information Elements (IEs) listed below" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 6.1, 3rd paragraph: Why is the SHOULD not a MUST? When might it make sense not to follow those rules? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ANSWER: SHOULD has been changed by a MUST. We though in supporting other mechanisms at some point. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Editorial Comments -- Abstract: Please expand 6TICH on first mention ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ANSWER: Thanks, this has been corrected. 2017-02-20 11:08 GMT+01:00 Xavi Vilajosana Guillen <[email protected]>: > Dear Ben, > > I am preparing answers for your comments. I will respond asap. > > kind regards, > Xavi > > 2017-02-16 4:08 GMT+01:00 Ben Campbell <[email protected]>: > >> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-20: No Objection >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> - Substantive Comments >> >> -- Section 4, 2nd paragraph, "A node MAY use different values": Is that >> intended to weaken the RECOMMENDED in the previous sentence? (If not, >> then is the MAY needed at all?) >> >> -- 4.5.1, first 3 paragraphs: Why are the SHOULDs not MUSTs? Can you >> articulate why it might be reasonable to make other choices? >> >> -- 4.5.2, 3rd paragraph, "It MAY be necessary..." >> That seems like a statement of fact. Please consider non-2119 language. >> >> --- 4th paragraph: It's not clear to me if the MUST in "MUST be sent as >> per the 802.15.4 specification..." is constraining options from that >> specification, or just referring to requirements that exists in that >> specification. If the latter, please consider descriptive rather than >> normative language. (e.g. "The 802.15.4 specification requires...." >> >> -- 6.1, 3rd paragraph: Why is the SHOULD not a MUST? When might it make >> sense not to follow those rules? >> >> >> - Editorial Comments >> >> -- Abstract: Please expand 6TICH on first mention >> >> >> > > > -- > Dr. Xavier Vilajosana > Wireless Networks Lab > > *Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3)Professor* > (+34) 646 633 681 <+34%20646%2063%2036%2081> > [email protected] <[email protected]> > http://xvilajosana.org > http://wine.rdi.uoc.edu > Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia > Av Carl Friedrich Gauss 5, B3 Building > 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona). Catalonia. Spain > [image: Universitat Oberta de Catalunya] > > -- Dr. Xavier Vilajosana Wireless Networks Lab *Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3)Professor* (+34) 646 633 681 [email protected] <[email protected]> http://xvilajosana.org http://wine.rdi.uoc.edu Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia Av Carl Friedrich Gauss 5, B3 Building 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona). Catalonia. Spain [image: Universitat Oberta de Catalunya]
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
