From nobody Mon Oct 19 19:20:29 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07A7C3A0D33 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 19:20:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.247 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.247 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ieee.org Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vy0PjLETxJ7E for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 19:20:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wr1-x42c.google.com (mail-wr1-x42c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0C183A0EA5 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 19:20:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id e17so187865wru.12 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 19:20:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ieee.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ikMKhdwngZ0VkdxIuflF+z3wuSyM6I8WO0oMWZaT3p4=; b=GuAVZZvaFnLoRsmvB/T0CHg+BfUOIVr8zgDw70e/byAO9Futi6lIC+RECXKitZhqPq vbKOK/os5imHJXJeQBzRLrxjh42Nlhh68AstjfH4AiRQM6TLRJZpAr1DTQ/SFkEiqclh x2Qy4u71tXdReY/9WfSheLk8CK9uuhx5E/ADQ= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=ikMKhdwngZ0VkdxIuflF+z3wuSyM6I8WO0oMWZaT3p4=; b=leFbTnpQjZYveLyOBVltvdsjR5oakVXiphml9kEMu8KmAgySK+RRvJvF7MOHcfItRT AfnnT+TWBuwSjpiV2D5Tk36KBsqjMzeT/sYcYWyBKXVnYbjxOmBbNsQwe7RoeUZrMBjq sk3aubgz70dBOIJITJAotfGk1iXd2bzQcSr981tsjSMg24yoxsnejtflud6u/ryw/vpU fs3Ruh7Vgljx9+3+/01kRBbiXPGh0IPojmDGKpbtJoRX2s7KDIDkgPWacSyHYu10yvMq 0HGbZgwAhXytoB1l8GjMdiJFBeOXETFnZB+bRkAcdrs3hlQZpQSy1rvtsoh4ye5hhdha Lksg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532hWi1ZFg+RJwZ2ZLRYGfOlFZOT9ihdpMAw0Dmj7q4P5DnuZ12a vrXoc564dxc7NGeFSIbqEdkb4xPPT5GVzNmsCtfLtdG9CSU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwY2YNDORXRZtjldTB5aht9/xjRXlmvY7EKS45zdgx+6r2SwgSQdSR2BdV2O5Sxyzz7Op1N6kjAMKxdvbsRPu4= X-Received: by 2002:adf:a551:: with SMTP id j17mr672298wrb.217.1603160421869; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 19:20:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Kerry Lynn Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 22:20:11 -0400 Message-ID: To: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000076ad0e05b210dfca" Archived-At: Subject: [6lo] Fwd: 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 02:20:28 -0000 --00000000000076ad0e05b210dfca Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Kerry Lynn Date: Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 7:19 PM Subject: Re: [6lo] 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases To: Shwetha Dears Chairs and authors, Here are some comments on the draft. In general the document is well-structured and readable and I hope it proves to be useful. Page 3 As Pascal points out s/6LoPWAN/6LoWPAN/ in four places. s/make the need/create the need/ s/are uniquely different from/expand upon/ I think the point here is that the different 6lo link layers are uniquely suited to different applications? Page 4 s/wire/wired/ Section 3.4 (page 6) Please delete the last sentence as it basically repeats the first sentence. Regards, Kerry Lynn On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 3:03 AM Shwetha wrote: > This initiates a 2nd WGLC on the use-cases and applicability draft: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases/ > > The first WGLC initiated in November 2018 didn't conclude due to lack of > responses. However the workgroup has reviewed the latest revisions and > authors have addressed the comments in -09 pending one comment > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/Ib4P3Zq-CCf6Ye4uKLU-NIHlp_I/# > > As per the discussion at the 6lo session during IETF 108, this starts a > WGLC. This WGLC will conclude in two weeks on Monday October 19th. > > Please send your comments to evaluate progressing this draft. > > Thanks, > Shwetha > _______________________________________________ > 6lo mailing list > 6lo@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo > --00000000000076ad0e05b210dfca Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Kerry Lynn <kerlyn@ieee.org>
D= ate: Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: [6lo] 2nd WGLC for draft-= ietf-6lo-use-cases
To: Shwetha <shwetha.bhandari@gmail.com>


Dears Chairs and authors,

Here are some co= mments on the draft. In general the document is well-structured
a= nd readable and I hope it proves to be useful.

Page 3
As Pascal points out s/6LoPWAN/6LoWPAN/ in four place= s.
s/make the need/create the need/
s/are uniqu= ely different from/expand upon/
I think the point here is that th= e different 6lo link layers are uniquely suited to different applications?<= br>
Page 4
s/wire/wired/

Sect= ion 3.4 (page 6)
Please delete the last sentence as it basica= lly repeats the first sentence.

Regards, Kerry Lyn= n

On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 3:03 AM Shwetha <shwetha.bhandari@gmail.com&g= t; wrote:
This initiates a 2nd WGLC on the use-cases and applicability dra= ft:


The first WGLC initiated in November 2018 di= dn't conclude due to lack of responses. However the workgroup has revie= wed the latest revisions and authors have addressed the comments in -09 pen= ding one comment=C2=A0https://mailarchive.ietf.o= rg/arch/msg/6lo/Ib4P3Zq-CCf6Ye4uKLU-NIHlp_I/#
As per the discussion=C2=A0at the 6lo session dur= ing IETF 108, this starts a WGLC. This WGLC will conclude in two weeks on M= onday October 19th.

Plea= se send your comments to evaluate progressing this draft.

Thanks,
Shwetha
_______________________________________________
6lo mailing list
6lo@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
--00000000000076ad0e05b210dfca--