[6tisch] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-13: (with COMMENT)

Barry Leiba via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 19 February 2020 22:12 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietf.org
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BCDC12022E; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 14:12:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon@ietf.org, Pascal Thubert <pthubert@cisco.com>, 6tisch-chairs@ietf.org, pthubert@cisco.com, 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.118.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Message-ID: <158215037335.17770.847543929623414730.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 14:12:53 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/oYIQosmGBa3o2er9bghDTfKqWjg>
Subject: [6tisch] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-13: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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" <6tisch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6tisch/>
List-Post: <mailto:6tisch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:12:54 -0000

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-13: No Objection

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:


— Section 1.2 —

   The EB is used by nodes already part of a TSCH network to annouce its

I can’t figure out the antecedent to “its”.  Can you rephrase this sentence to
make it clearer?

   There is a limited number of timeslots designated as a broadcast slot
   by each router in the network.

While “a limited number” looks as if it should be singular, it is generally
considered plural in usage and needs “are”, not “is” (and the plural “broadcast
slots”).  This is a tricky one...

You should also get rid of the “/s” later in the paragraph.

— Section 1.3 —

   if a pledge node does not hear an
   RA, and decides to send a RS

You should be consistent in use of “a” or “an”, and I think “an” works better.

In the numbered list, each item is a complete sentence and should start with a
capital letter.  You also should fix the sentence capitalization throughout
Section 2.

   This document defines a new IETF IE subtype

Please expand “IE” here.

— Section 3 —

   The Enhanced Beagon


   validate the beacon, providing them with a trusted

The end of that sentence is missing.

 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

The following are comments from Murray Kucherawy, incoming ART AD.  Murray is
getting an early start on doing reviews, and I’m including his comments into my
ballots during the overlap period before he’s officially an Area Director.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mostly minor things here since this is (currently) well outside my domain.

Every reference to "Enhanced Beacon" in this document parses to me as "Enhanced

The nits from directorate reports seem to provide good editorial suggestions,
though somehow none of them noticed that the second paragraph of Section 1.3
starts "Although However".  It looks kind of like the "although" should
actually come after the second comma.

I don't know what to make sure of "(see {?RFC7554})".  Are they not sure about
these references?  Or is this a new format thing?

RFC 8137's IANA section seems especially spartan, but there's nothing to be
done about that here.  (I discovered this by following a reference.)

In Section 2, "Values range" should be "Values range from".

Same section: "The exact process is a subject of significant research work." 
Are we documenting a process we don't understand?  Are any references to said
research appropriate here?

The sentence "This value MUST be ignored by pledges..." is a comma splice.

Under "pan priority", should "Acycling" be "Acyclic"?

"nodes'" should be "node's", I think.