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

[Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>]

Thanks!

> On 20. Feb 2020, at 20:08, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> One question: How is the proxy priority supposed to be calculated/set?
>> Is there a default value?
> 
> draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority describes a way to calculate it when RPL
> is used.   The calculation needs to take into account available network
> resources along the paths down to the Join Proxy, and also network-wide
> "enthuasiam" for new nodes.
> I will add a reference: these two documents started as a single document, but
> seem to have never gained appropriate cross-links.
> 
>> Editorial comment: I would recommend to repeat the abstract in the
>> intro as, as stated in the RFC style guide RFC7322 section 4.3, "[...]
>> an Abstract is not a substitute for an Introduction; the RFC should be
>> self-contained as if there were no Abstract."
> 
> yes, that's good, I'll move and merge some text.
> 
>> Nit: sec 1.3: s/Although However/Although/ or s/Although
>> However/However/ ?  s/a unicast RS may be transmitted in
>> response[RFC6775] reduces the amount of.../a unicast RS that may be
>> transmitted in response [RFC6775] reduces the amount of.../ ? (Also
>> note missing space before [)
> 
> already edited, i hope you it will make more sense.
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
> 
>