Ben Campbell 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Substantive Comments: Requirements Language: The document contains at least a few instances of lower case "must". Please consider using the boilerplate from RFC 8174. §3.1.1, figure 4: Did I miss an explanation of why A sends 3 candidate cells when it needs 2 new cells? I can guess why, but it would be best to explicitly explain it. §6.2.2 and §6.2.3: Do you really expect new message types and commands to be added routinely enough to justify a registry? Editorial Comments and Nits: Abstract: Please expand 6top on first mention. You do so later in the paragraph, but not the first time. (This pattern repeats in the document body) §1: Please expand 6TiSCH on first mention. §3.1.1, Figure 4, step 2: "Node A locks the candidate cells in it schedule until..." doesn't parse. Should "it" be "its"? §4: This section seems to be about 6top scheduling function _specification_, not the functions themselves. Is this correct? Appendix A: Seems like this should be part of the IANA considerations. _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
