Dear Charlie, Thank you very much for your detailed review, and for the constructive feedback provided. Also, providing us with your editorial suggestions via a diff file is very much appreciated!
We have updated the draft (now, -08). This version aims to address both your editorial and technical comments. Should you have further comments, please let us know. Cheers, Carles (on behalf of all authors) ----------------------- The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lwig-energy-efficient/ There are also htmlized versions available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-energy-efficient-08 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lwig-energy-efficient-08 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lwig-energy-efficient-08 ----------------------- > Reviewer: Charles Perkins > Review result: On the Right Track > > [Please excuse if this is a duplicate. I got an error from datatracker on > my first attempt.] > > Overall comments: > > I think that some important techniques for energy efficiency deserve > mention > or significant enlargement: > > - Packet bundling > - Data aggregation > - Power management / range reduction > - Fragmentation is more energy-efficient at lower layers than at higher > layers > - Compression, on the other hand, is more efficient at higher layers, > particularly before encryption. > > The document needs a concise statement of purpose. Maybe insert the > following after the first paragraph of the Introduction: > > In this document we describe techniques that are in common use at Layer > 2 > and at Layer 3, and we indicate the need for higher-layer awareness of > lower-layer features. > > Also in the introduction, some discussion is needed about cross-layer > design. > Is cross-layer design in scope for the [lwig] Working Group? > > In figure 1 and elsewhere, it should not be assumed that RPL is the only > choice for routing in energy-efficient networks. So, for instance, > "RPL" could be replaced by "RTG" in Figure 1. > > Shouldn't there be an entry for synchronized reception in Figure 2? Isn't > Figure 2 actually a table, and thus should be labeled Table 1? > > Section 3.3 (Throughput) does not seem to add much if anything to the > discussion. The conclusion about the trade-off is quite obvious. > > Particularly in section 3.5.2, but also elsewhere, some examples would > be very helpful. > > Section 6.3 (CoAP timers) seems to be only about one timer. > Are there more? What about interactions with TCP timers, etc.? > > Section 7 should be entitled "Summary and Conclusions". > In section 7, it would be nice to offer cross references for each > conclusion, referring the reader to the relevant section of the document. > Each conclusion should follow from some previous section of the document. > Unfortunately that currently isn't quite the case. > > The citation [Announcementlayer] does not appear in the body of the > article. > > There are weird line breaks appearing at certain random points in the > document. > > I have editorial suggestions and corrections which I will > supply as an rfcdiff file under separate email. > > Regards, > Charlie P. > > _______________________________________________ > Lwip mailing list > Lwip@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip > _______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list Lwip@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
