Hi Hannes,
First of all, thanks for your review, comments and suggestions.
Please find a few inline replies:
Hi all,
I took a quick look at this document. Clearly this is an important topic
but it is also challenging.
When this topic was brought up at the IAB smart object workshop I was
Dear WG members,
On behalf of the authors of draft-ietf-lwig-energy-efficient, and as per
the suggestion of co-chair Zhen Cao during the LWIG meeting in Toronto, I
would like to ask the WG list a question on which should be the approach
for Section 3 of draft-ietf-lwig-energy-efficient.
Section
Dear WG,
As you have seen, version -02 of draft-ietf-lwig-energy-efficient is now
available.
The main changes are:
- The feedback collected during IETF'91 is now incorporated into the
document (mainly in subsection 6.2).
- The Cross Layer Optimization section has been removed.
-
d'origine-
De : Lwip [mailto:lwip-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Carles Gomez
Montenegro
Envoyé : samedi 7 mars 2015 16:53
À : lwip@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Lwip] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lwig-energy-efficient-02.txt
Dear WG,
As you have seen, version -02 of draft-ietf-lwig-energy
in Dallas, we would like to add a
section 3.5.x on DECT-ULE.
We will provide text within about a week.
With best regards,
Dominique
-Message d'origine-
De : Lwip [mailto:lwip-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Carles Gomez
Montenegro Envoyé : samedi 7 mars 2015 16:53 À : lwip@ietf.org Objet
Dear WG,
We just submitted a new version of the Energy efficient draft.
Changes in this version:
- New subsection on power save services available in DECT ULE (contributed
by Jens T. Petersen in collaboration with the DECT ULE I-D team. Thanks!)
- Minor editorial changes.
Please note that,
Rgards,
>
> Gengyu WEI
> Network Technology Center
> School of Computer
> Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications
> -----åå§é®ä»¶-
> From: Carles Gomez Montenegro
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 11:10 PM
> To: Carsten Bormann
> Cc: lwip@ietf.org ; t...@ietf.org
Hi Abhijan,
(Keeping the lists included as destinations, sorry for multiple copies...)
Thank you very much for your feedback. Please find some inline comments
below:
> Hi,
>
> Section 3.4 of the draft states the following:
>
> "it is envisaged that further segment exchanges will take place
Hi Ari,
Thank you very much for your feedback, and sorry for the late response.
Please find below a few inline comments:
>> By the way, currently the phrasing in the draft is that a window size of
>> one 'MUST' be used. This keeps a behavior equivalent to that of CoAP for
>> confirmable messages
Hi Fred,
Thank you very much for the great feedback!
> That's an amazing CC list :-) I would suggest moving to expertly one of
> those working groups.
Yes... :-)
(Still, keeping LWIG and TCPM...)
> Carsten's comment that TCP sessions are likely to be asymmetric, with a
> constrained node
Dear WG,
A new revision of the "energy efficient" draft is available. This revision
includes changes as a result of comments received during WGLC.
To the chairs: how should we proceed next?
Thanks!
Carles
Original Message
Subject:
Dear all,
We have submitted version -02 of the "TCP over Constrained-Node Networks"
draft. Please find pointers to the updated document below.
Cheers,
Carles
Original Message
Subject: New Version Notification for
Hi Rahul,
Thank you very much for your comments.
Please find below inline responses:
> Hi Carles & co-authors,
>
> Foll are my comments for the
> draft-gomez-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-03:
>
> 1. Section 4.3 Window Size
> [RJ] A single MSS implies max one in-flight segment ... While
Dear LWIG WG folks,
We have just submitted an update of the TCP over CNNs draft.
In this new version, we have aimed to address the feedback received in
Chicago, and we have added content on the RIOT and OpenWSN TCP
implementations.
Any comments will be very much welcome.
Cheers,
Carles
h actual wording proposals.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net]
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 1:40 PM
>>> To: jon.crowcr...@cl.cam.ac.uk; Scharf, Mich
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
Dear LWIG WG,
As you can see below, we have updated the LWIG TCP draft. Comments are
welcome!
On the other hand, while we believe the document is starting to be quite
complete, we would like to take the opportunity to ask you a few
questions:
1.- With regard to the constrained TCP
Hi Hannes,
First of all, sorry for the delay, and thanks a lot again for your
comprehensive review.
As you may have seen, we have published a revision of the draft (-01)
which, among others, aims to address your comments.
Please find below a set of inline responses:
> Hi Michael, Jon, Carles
>
Dear Peter,
Thanks a lot for your helpful review.
We plan to incorporate your suggestions in the next revision of the draft.
Best regards,
Carles
> Reviewer: Peter Yee
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team
Hello Yoshi,
Sorry for the late reply, and thanks a lot for taking the time for your
review and for providing comments.
Please find below my inline responses:
> Hello,
>
> I've read the draft and I think the draft looks fine and mostly ready.
> I have some comments below..
>
> 1: Section 4.2.4:
Dear LWIG and TCPM WGs,
As you can see below, we have updated the "TCP Usage Guidance in the
Internet of Things (IoT)" draft.
This revision intends to address previously pending TODOs, as well as
comments from the LWIG session in Montreal.
As you may recall, we are getting ready for requesting
Dear all,
Please find below a new revision (-07) of the draft entitled "TCP Usage
Guidance in the Internet of Things (IoT)".
The updates in this revision are intended to address the comments and
incorporate the suggestions kindly provided by Gorry Fairhurst.
@Gorry: thank you very much for
Dear LWIP and TCPM WGs,
First of all, thanks to everyone who provided feedback on revision -04 of
our "TCP Usage Guidance in the Internet of Things (IoT)" draft.
Please find below the pointers to an update of the draft (revision -05),
based on the comments received.
Main changes:
o Addressed
gt;
> /Markku
>
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2019, Carles Gomez Montenegro wrote:
>
>> Dear Markku,
>>
>> Thank you very much for your comprehensive and detailed review of the
>> draft. Your constructive comments have been very useful to address
>> issues
>>
Dear all,
We just submitted revision -10 of the "TCP Usage Guidance in the Internet
of Things (IoT)" draft.
The main changes in this revision are intended to address:
- Erik Kline's comments after his AD review.
- A comment from Markku Kojo on advice given in RFC 6691.
Thanks to both, Erik
response to your last message:
> On Sep 20, 2020, at 2:28 AM, Carles Gomez Montenegro
> wrote:
>> Thanks for the insight on the paper you mention. It offers interesting
>> details, and also experimental results consistent with our text, at
>> least
>> for some MSS r
Hi Markku,
Thanks for your message below!
Your message is timely, as we are at an earlier stage of the document
process. (I understand that the shepherd writeup still needs to be
prepared, and the document has not yet been evaluated by the IESG.)
In the next update of the draft, we will add the
Hi Ted,
Thanks for your response. Please find below my inline responses:
> On Sep 18, 2020, at 8:14 AM, Carles Gomez Montenegro
> wrote:
>> Could you please provide any pointers to "existing research that
>> shows that MSS of greater than perhaps five lowpan frame
Hi Martin,
Thank you very much for your review and feedback!
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:
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
Hi Alissa, and Linda,
Thank you very much for your reviews!
Based on Alissa's message, we understand that no update is required
regarding Linda's comments.
Thanks,
Carles (on behalf of the authors)
> Linda, thanks for your review. I think on both points you raise what the
> document proposes
Hi Benjamin,
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:
> Benjamin
Hi Barry,
Thank you very much for your review!
We just submitted revisions -12 and -13, which aim at addressing the
comments received from the IESG and related reviewers:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-13
Please find below our inline responses:
>
Hi Mirja,
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, including yours:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-12
Please find below our inline
Hi Murray,
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:
> Murray
Hi Robert,
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:
> Robert
Hi Bernie,
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, including yours:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-12
Please find below our inline
Hi again, Bernie,
> We made the corresponding corrections in our working copy, but I just
> realized that there is still one instance of "characterstic" and
> "codesize" in -12... The rest of typos have been corrected. Sorry for
> that. We will definitely address those in the next revision. :(
Hello Inés,
Thank you very much for your review, and for your kind words.
Regarding your two questions below, please find next our answers:
1.- Yes, we agree to remove section 2 (unless further discussion requires to
use normative language).
2.- Section 3.1.3 of RFC 8095 lists well-known
39 matches
Mail list logo
