Re: [6tisch] Iotdir early review of draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-05

Michael Richardson <> Fri, 08 November 2019 01:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B8FB1200CC; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:22:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bDO_C-pkO-ca; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:22:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09CA1120018; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:22:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55F6E3897B; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 20:19:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B996A913; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 20:22:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Carles Gomez <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 20:22:50 -0500
Message-ID: <23455.1573176170@localhost>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] Iotdir early review of draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss link layer model for Deterministic IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e, and impacts on RPL and 6LoWPAN such as resource allocation" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 01:22:54 -0000

Carles Gomez via Datatracker <> wrote:
    > I did not identify technical problems. (There are comments below that do have a
    > technical side, but the issues might just be editorial.)

    > There is a number of suggestions provided below, mostly editorial and about
    > presentation.

    > Title
    > - "IEEE802.15.4" --> "IEEE 802.15.4"
    > - "Informational Element" --> "Information Element"
    > - "6tisch" --> "6TiSCH"


    > Abstract: I'd suggest adding a comma after "In TSCH mode of IEEE STD 802.15.4".


    > Section 1.
    > - "As further details" --> "As further detailed"
    > - Introduce the acronym "EB" the first time that "Enhanced Beacon" appears.
    > (Then use "EB" thereafter in the document.)


    > Subsection 1.2.
    > - After "synchronization of ASN and Join Metric," perhaps you may insert
    > "carrying" and reorganize a bit the rest of the sentence.

    >  - "existance" -->
    > "existence" >
    > "There are a limited number...". --> "There is a limited
    > number..." - "... by each router". Perhaps, to give more context, "by each
    > router in the network".


    > Subsection 1.3.
    > - Title: please add ":" after "synchronization".

    > - Title: capitalize "solicitations" and "advertisements"


    > - On the first use of RS, RA, NS and NA, please use the expanded form and
    > introduce the acronym, and use the acronym thereafter.

I actually find it really hard to read with some many similar two-letter
TLAs, so I tend to expand it when clarity is important.

I don't recall what happened next, as I left this email in the draft folder
too long.

    > - "consuming a broadcast
    > aloha slot with unencrypted traffic" appears to be one of the reasons
    > mentioned, but it is a bit hidden between parenthesis. You may want to
    > reorganize the sentence to emphasize that this is actually the crucial point. -
    > Second bullet in the list: did you mean "RA" instead of "Router Soliciation" -
    > Third bullet in the list: "If it must listen for a RS as well..." Did you mean
    > "listen for an RA" ?

    > - It might be nice to close Section 1 by adding something along the lines of
    > "This document defines...". However, this would not be specific to subsection
    > 1.3. Therefore, some reorganization of Section 1 might improve the document.

    > Section 2.
    > - Even if there is a single figure in the whole document, it might be good to
    > add a figure number and a caption the format for the new IE subtype. - After
    > the figure, is there a particular reason why the fields of the format are
    > presented in a different order from the one in the format? - Please add a ":"
    > after the name of each field and its definition/description. - "this field
    > indicates the willingness to act as join proxy". Perhaps "the willingness of
    > the sender to act..."? - "Lower value indicates willing to act as a Join
    > Proxy..." Perhaps "Lower value indicates greater willingness to act as..." -
    > "Values range 0 (most willing)..." --> "Values range 0x00 (most willing)..." -
    > In the figure, one field is called "Join Proxy lower-64". In the text, it has a
    > different name... - "if the Proxy Address P-flag is set, then the lower 64-bits
    > of the Join Proxy’s Link Layer address..." Did you mean "link-local" instead of
    > "Link Layer? - "the layer-2 address of any IPv6 traffic to the originator". Did
    > you mean "the destination layer-2 address..." ? - "if the P bit is set, then 64
    > bits (8 bytes) of address are present." I had trouble understanding this
    > sentence. Please consider rewriting it. - "this is an variable length field"
    --> "this is a variable length field".

    > Section 5.
    > - "Registry IETF IE Sub-type ID." Please cite RFC 8137 here as well.

    > _______________________________________________
    > 6tisch mailing list