Re: [Lwip] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thanks. Looks good. - Bernie > On Oct 30, 2020, at 4:18 AM, Carles Gomez Montenegro > 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 Lwip@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
Re: [Lwip] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thank you Carle for addressing my DISCUSS point (which was trivial to fix ;) ) I have cleared my DISCUSS position on the data tracker Regards and thanks again for the work done by the authors and the WG -éric -Original Message- From: Carles Gomez Montenegro Date: Friday, 30 October 2020 at 09:18 To: Eric Vyncke Cc: The IESG , "Bernie Volz (volz)" , "lwip@ietf.org" , "mariainesrob...@googlemail.com" , "draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-netwo...@ietf.org" , "lwig-cha...@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Lwip] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) 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: > Éric 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 Lwip@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
Re: [Lwip] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: > Ãric 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 Lwip@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
[Lwip] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Éric 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. 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/ I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric == DISCUSS == Please replace all RFC 2460 references to RFC 8200. Trivial to fix ;-) -- COMMENT: -- == COMMENTS == Should a reference to RFC 8900 be added in the MTU discussion in section 4.1 ? -- 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 ? ___ Lwip mailing list Lwip@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
