Re: [C310] AUTH48 [JM]: RFC 9033 <draft-ietf-6tisch-msf-18.txt> NOW AVAILABLE

[Mališa Vučinić <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

I went through the text and I have no further changes to make.

Regarding point (2) below, please use the UTF-8 version of my name for all the documents in this cluster: Mališa Vučinić. I believe Tengfei will resolve the remaining issues.

Thank you.

Mališa

On 21/04/2021 08:49, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Authors,
    
    While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
    
    1) <!-- [rfced] We note that the sortRefs attribute is missing in 
    rfc element. Would you like the citations in the References sorted
    alphabetically or by first use in the document? 
    -->
    
    
    2) <!--[rfced] Mališa, do you prefer that your name appear as
    "Malisa Vucinic" or "Mališa Vučinić" in this document (and other 
    documents in this cluster)? We note the latter appears on this page:
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/person/Mali%C5%A1a%20Vu%C4%8Dini%C4%87
    -->
    
    
    3) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear 
    in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. 
    -->
    
    
    4) <!-- [rfced] Does the following improve the readability of
     the sentence?
    
    Current:
       In case of a slot to transmit or receive, a channel is
       assigned to the time slot.  
    
    Perhaps:
       For time slots for transmitting or receiving, a channel is
       assigned to the time slot.  
    -->
    
    
    5) <!-- [rfced]  We are having difficulty parsing the following:
    
    Current:
       For interoperability purposes, the values of those parameters 
       can be referred from Appendix A.
    
    Purhaps:
       For interoperability purposes, Appendix A provides guidance
       on calculating the values of those parameters. 
    -->
    
    
    6) <!-- [rfced] Please consider rephrasing to make this more precise.
    -->
    
    
    7) <!-- [rfced] We are having difficulty parsing this passage.
    Specifically, may the first sentence be rephrased as follows?
    And, in the later sentence, should "absolved" be "alleviated"?
    
    Current:
       The 6P traffic overhead using a larger value of MAX_NUM_CELLS could 
       be reduced as well... The latency caused by slight changes of traffic 
       load can be absolved by the additional scheduled cells.
    
    Perhaps:
       By using a larger value of MAX_NUM_CELLS, the 6P traffic overhead could 
       be reduced as well... The latency caused by slight changes of traffic 
       load can be alleviated by the additional scheduled cells.  
    -->
    
    
    8) <!-- [rfced]  FYI, we have applied superscript formatting to the following.
    Please let us know if you would like to add a space on either side of the
    operators to improve readability.
    
    Current:
       ((2^MAXBE)-1)*MAXRETRIES*SLOTFRAME_LENGTH
    
    Perhaps:
       ((2^MAXBE) - 1) * MAXRETRIES * SLOTFRAME_LENGTH
    -->
    
    
    9) <!--[rfced] FYI, we have updated this reference as follows, as the DOI
    provided in the original is not functional, and it seems your intention
    was to refer to IEEE 802.15.4-2015. (Please note that it was 
    "Superseded by IEEE Std 802.15.4-2020" as detailed at the provided URL.)
    
    Please review and let us know any updates; we will follow up 
    on this topic as this reference appears in several documents 
    in this cluster (C310).
    
    Original:
       [IEEE802154]
                  IEEE standard for Information Technology, "IEEE Std                                   
                  802.15.4 Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area                                 
                  Networks (WPANs)", DOI 10.1109/IEEE P802.15.4-REVd/D01,
                  <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7460875/>.
    
    Current:
       [IEEE802154]
                  IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Low-Rate Wireless Networks", IEEE
                  Standard 802.15.4-2015, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2016.7460875,
                  April 2016,
                  <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7460875>.
    -->
    
    
    10) <!-- [rfced]  In the appendix, the term "mote" is used instead of "node".
    Is this intentional?
    -->
    
    
    11) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we have updated the formatting of the Contributors
    section to use <contact/> elements:
    
    Original:
       *  Beshr Al Nahas (Chalmers University, [e-mail])
       *  Olaf Landsiedel (Chalmers University, [e-mail])
       *  Yasuyuki Tanaka (Inria-Paris, [e-mail])
    
    Current:
       Beshr Al Nahas
       Chalmers University
    
       Email: [e-mail]
    
    
       Olaf Landsiedel
       Chalmers University
    
       Email: [e-mail]
    
    
       Yasuyuki Tanaka
       Inria-Paris
    
       Email: [e-mail]
    -->
    
    
    Thank you.
    
    RFC Editor/jm/ar
    
    
    On Apr 20, 2021, [e-mail] wrote:
    
    *****IMPORTANT*****
    
    Updated 2021/04/20
    
    RFC Author(s):
    --------------
    
    Instructions for Completing AUTH48
    
    Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
    approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
    If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
    available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
    
    You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
    (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
    your approval.
    
    Planning your review 
    ---------------------
    
    Please review the following aspects of your document:
    
    *  RFC Editor questions
    
      Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
      that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
      follows:
    
      <!-- [rfced] ... -->
    
      These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
    
    *  Changes submitted by coauthors 
    
      Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
      coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
      agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
    
    *  Content 
    
      Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
      change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
      - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
      - contact information
      - references
    
    *  Copyright notices and legends
    
      Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
      RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
      (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).
    
    *  Semantic markup
    
      Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
      content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
      and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
      <https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html>.
    
    *  Formatted output
    
      Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
      formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
      reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
      limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
    
    
    Submitting changes
    ------------------
    
    To submit changes, please reply to this email with one of the following, 
    using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CC’ed on this message need to see 
    your changes:
    
    An update to the provided XML file
    — OR —
    An explicit list of changes in this format
    
    Section # (or indicate Global)
    
    OLD:
    old text
    
    NEW:
    new text
    
    You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
    list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
    
    We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
    beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
    and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
    the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
    
    
    Approving for publication
    --------------------------
    
    To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email s
    tating that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’
    as all the parties CC’ed on this message need to see your approval.
    
    
    Files 
    -----
    
    The files are available here:
      https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9033.xml
      https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9033.html
      https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9033.pdf
      https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9033.txt
    
    Diff file of the text:
      https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9033-diff.html
    
    Diff of the XML: 
      https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9033-xmldiff.html
    
    Tracking progress
    -----------------
    
    The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
      https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9033
    
    Please let us know if you have any questions.  
    
    Thank you for your cooperation,
    
    RFC Editor
    
    --------------------------------------
    RFC9033 (draft-ietf-6tisch-msf-18)
    
    Title            : 6TiSCH Minimal Scheduling Function (MSF)
    Author(s)        : T. Chang, Ed., M. Vucinic, X. Vilajosana, S. Duquennoy, D. Dujovne
    WG Chair(s)      : Pascal Thubert, Thomas Watteyne
    Area Director(s) : Erik Kline, Éric Vyncke