Thanks. Looks good. - Bernie
> On Oct 30, 2020, at 4:18 AM, Carles Gomez Montenegro <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Éric, > > Thank you very much for your review! > > We just submitted revision -12, which aims at addressing the comments > received from the IESG and related reviewers: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-12 > > Please find below our inline responses: > > >> Ã?ric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-11: Discuss >> >> 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-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> DISCUSS: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Thank you for the work put into this document. It is an important topic >> and the >> document is both easy to ready and detailed. > > Thank you for your kind words. > >> Please find below one trivial DISCUSS point and a couple of non-blocking >> COMMENT points but please also check: - Ines Robles IoT directorate >> review: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-11-iotdir-telechat-robles-2020-10-20/ >> - Bernie Volz Internet directorate review: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-11-intdir-telechat-volz-2020-10-20/ > > Yes, the latest revision is intended to address the comments received on > -11, including those by Inés and Bernie. > >> I hope that this helps to improve the document, > > It did help, thank you. > >> Regards, >> >> -éric >> >> == DISCUSS == >> >> Please replace all RFC 2460 references to RFC 8200. Trivial to fix ;-) > > Done. ;-) > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> == COMMENTS == >> >> Should a reference to RFC 8900 be added in the MTU discussion in section >> 4.1 ? > > A reference to RFC 8900 has been added accordingly. > >> -- Section 2 -- >> As noted by many, the BCP 14 boiler plate is the old one and the normative >> terminology is not used in this informational document. => remove it ? > > Agreed. We removed Section 2. > > Thanks, > > Carles (on behalf of the authors) > _______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
