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

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Thanks a lot Carles for your careful review and your text change proposals. Authors, any thoughts on these changes?

Regards
Suresh

> On Oct 24, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Carles Gomez via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Carles Gomez
> Review result: Ready with Issues
> 
> Thanks to the authors for writing this document.
> 
> 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. - "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.
>