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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 21 February 2020 12:46 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A99F8120227; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 04:46:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.85
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.85 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=1.049, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 Pr5nQvmeUlAB; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 04:46:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 731361200C4; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 04:46:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (CPEbc4dfbbcd553-CMbc4dfbbcd550.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.230.57.100]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE4CD1F489; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 12:39:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 839BB1A3B78; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 20:08:47 +0100 (CET)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: =?us-ascii?Q?=3D=3Futf-8=3Fq=3FMirja=5FK=3DC3=3DBChlewind=3F=3D?= <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
cc: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>, pthubert@cisco.com, 6tisch-chairs@ietf.org, 6tisch@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <158202907388.14130.11373306134419981744.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <158202907388.14130.11373306134419981744.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Comments: In-reply-to =?us-ascii?Q?=3D=3Futf-8=3Fq=3FMirja=5FK=3DC3=3DBChl?= =?us-ascii?Q?ewind=5Fvia=5FDatatracker=3F=3D?= <noreply@ietf.org> message dated "Tue, 18 Feb 2020 04:31:13 -0800."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 20:08:47 +0100
Message-ID: <3085.1582225727@dooku>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/uDzYcOTbaFism9aVu-4ttdRS0Gc>
Subject: Re: [6tisch] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_draf?= =?utf-8?q?t-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-13=3A_=28with_COMMENT?= =?utf-8?q?=29?=
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
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" <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: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 12:46:03 -0000

Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> 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 <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-