Carles Gomez via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote: > 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"
Fixed.
> Abstract: I'd suggest adding a comma after "In TSCH mode of IEEE STD
802.15.4".
okay.
> 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.)
okay.
> 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".
okay.
> Subsection 1.3.
> - Title: please add ":" after "synchronization".
> - Title: capitalize "solicitations" and "advertisements"
okay
> - On the first use of RS, RA, NS and NA, please use the expanded form and
> introduce the acronym, and use the acronym thereafter.
I actually find it really hard to read with some many similar two-letter
TLAs, so I tend to expand it when clarity is important.
I don't recall what happened next, as I left this email in the draft folder
too long.
> - "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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
