Thanks a lot Carles for your careful review and your text change proposals. Authors, any thoughts on these changes?
Regards Suresh > On Oct 24, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Carles Gomez via Datatracker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Reviewer: Carles Gomez > Review result: Ready with Issues > > Thanks to the authors for writing this document. > > I did not identify technical problems. (There are comments below that do have > a > technical side, but the issues might just be editorial.) > > There is a number of suggestions provided below, mostly editorial and about > presentation. > > Title > - "IEEE802.15.4" --> "IEEE 802.15.4" > - "Informational Element" --> "Information Element" > - "6tisch" --> "6TiSCH" > > Abstract: I'd suggest adding a comma after "In TSCH mode of IEEE STD > 802.15.4". > > Section 1. > - "As further details" --> "As further detailed" > - Introduce the acronym "EB" the first time that "Enhanced Beacon" appears. > (Then use "EB" thereafter in the document.) > > Subsection 1.2. > - After "synchronization of ASN and Join Metric," perhaps you may insert > "carrying" and reorganize a bit the rest of the sentence. - "existance" --> > "existence" - "There are a limited number...". --> "There is a limited > number..." - "... by each router". Perhaps, to give more context, "by each > router in the network". > > Subsection 1.3. > - Title: please add ":" after "synchronization". > - Title: capitalize "solicitations" and "advertisements" > - On the first use of RS, RA, NS and NA, please use the expanded form and > introduce the acronym, and use the acronym thereafter. - "consuming a > broadcast > aloha slot with unencrypted traffic" appears to be one of the reasons > mentioned, but it is a bit hidden between parenthesis. You may want to > reorganize the sentence to emphasize that this is actually the crucial point. > - > Second bullet in the list: did you mean "RA" instead of "Router Soliciation" - > Third bullet in the list: "If it must listen for a RS as well..." Did you mean > "listen for an RA" ? > > - It might be nice to close Section 1 by adding something along the lines of > "This document defines...". However, this would not be specific to subsection > 1.3. Therefore, some reorganization of Section 1 might improve the document. > > Section 2. > - Even if there is a single figure in the whole document, it might be good to > add a figure number and a caption the format for the new IE subtype. - After > the figure, is there a particular reason why the fields of the format are > presented in a different order from the one in the format? - Please add a ":" > after the name of each field and its definition/description. - "this field > indicates the willingness to act as join proxy". Perhaps "the willingness of > the sender to act..."? - "Lower value indicates willing to act as a Join > Proxy..." Perhaps "Lower value indicates greater willingness to act as..." - > "Values range 0 (most willing)..." --> "Values range 0x00 (most willing)..." - > In the figure, one field is called "Join Proxy lower-64". In the text, it has > a > different name... - "if the Proxy Address P-flag is set, then the lower > 64-bits > of the Join Proxy’s Link Layer address..." Did you mean "link-local" instead > of > "Link Layer? - "the layer-2 address of any IPv6 traffic to the originator". > Did > you mean "the destination layer-2 address..." ? - "if the P bit is set, then > 64 > bits (8 bytes) of address are present." I had trouble understanding this > sentence. Please consider rewriting it. - "this is an variable length field" > --> "this is a variable length field". > > Section 5. > - "Registry IETF IE Sub-type ID." Please cite RFC 8137 here as well. > _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
