Dear allThe chair has asked me to do the shepherd write up for draft-ietf-lwig-energy-efficient-05.
I have gone through the document again and I have some comments that I think should be addressed first. Most of them are minor and editorial in nature. It would be great if the authors can fix them quickly (possibly by next week?). I will then submit my writeup. Here are the list of issues:
1. The abstract is little hard to read and understand. Here is an alternative suggestion:
This document describes the challenges for energy-efficient protocol operation on constrained devices and the current practices used to overcome those challenges. It summarizes the main link-layer techniques used for energy-efficient networking, and it highlights the impact of such techniques on the upper layer protocols so that they can together achieve an energy efficient behavior. The document also provides an overview of energy-efficient mechanisms available at each layer of the IETF protocol suite specified for constrained node networks.
2. Please check the spacing between the term and its citation. "The IETF has developed a suite of Internet protocols suitable for such constrained devices, including 6LoWPAN ([RFC6282 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6282>],[RFC6775 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6775>],[RFC4944 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4944>]), RPL[RFC6550], and CoAP[I-D.ietf-core-coap]." For example, RPL[RFC6550] should by RPL_space_[RFC6550].
3. Typo in the following text. "This document tries to summarize the design considerations of making the IETF contrained protocol suite as energy-efficient as possible." First, "contrained" should be "constrained". Replace "of" with "for" so the text would be: "summarize the design consideration *for* making the IETF constrained....".
4. Perhaps tone down the wording here, especially the word "comprehensive": "it provides a comprehensive overview of the techniques used by the lower layers to save energy and how these may impact on the upper layers"
5. It is generally a good practice to expand all acronyms once before you use them in the document. For example in Section 2 "Overview", currently RPL is used without ever expanding the term and there is no citation.
6. Please explain what are atom operations and common atom operations.7. What are UWB links? Again an acronym is used with no expansion or citation.
8. Section 3.1 "Radio Duty Cycling techniques" typo: "Receiver Initated Transmission (RIT)" should be "Receiver Initiated Transmission (RIT)"
9. Section 3.5.2, please expand TDMA, 3.5.3 please expand PAN, CSMA, CA.10. In section 3.5.3, it says "6TiSCH working group has been recently created". Perhaps this is text leftover from old versions. 6TiSCH is no longer recently created?
11. Section 6.2, "none of these proposal has been adopted by the CoRE working group". This is also old information now. The pub sub draft has been adopted. Perhaps you also want to cite the other LWIG document that talks about sleepy nodes: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-crypto-sensors-01
12. Section 7: please replace "synergize" with another term more appropriate. "lower layer other than treating the lower layer as a black box" should be "lower layer rather than treating the lower layer as a black box".
13. Typos in Section 7: "compresss" should be "compress" and "non-sychronzed" should be "non-synchronized".
Overall, thanks for the useful draft. I hope that you can quickly address the comments so that it can move forward.
--Mohit
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list Lwip@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
