Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol-11: 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-6top-protocol/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) S3.2.2: "The value of SeqNum MUST be different at each new 6P Request issued to the same neighbor." Should that be "...different...to the same neighbor and SF"? S3.4.6 talks about maintaining independent SeqNums per neighbor, per SF. (2) S3.2.3: "The SF MAY redefine the format and meaning of the CellOptions field." If the "RECOMMENDED" values are expected to be the default, how are changes to the formatting/meaning communicated between A and B? (3) S3.2.4: "The CellList is an opaque set of bytes, sent unmodified to the SF." Given that A and B don't really know what the contents of the CellList are, or even if the "RECOMMENDED format" is followed, I don't see the need to Normatively define the Cell Format. IOW, s/RECOMMENDED/recommended _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
