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

[[e-mail]]

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