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

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Dear all

The IEEE reference  to IEEE Standard 802.15.4 I dated: DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2016.7460875, April 2016
Usually we avoid that to enable the RFC over the family of IEEE standards as opposed to only the dated version, 2015 here.
OTOH, this spec goes deeper than we normally do at the IETF in referencing IEEE std innards. 
So though unusual, maybe in this case the dated form is OK. Still I'd like to see text about that reference that expects compatibility with future 802.15.4 versions, something like:
"
It is the expected that the IEEE methods and variables that this specification utilizes will remain in the future versions of IEEE Std 802.15.4 [IEEE802154], in which case this specification also applies to those future versions.
"
Keep safe;

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Sent: mercredi 21 avril 2021 8:49
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 6tisch-
> [e-mail]; Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[e-mail]>; c310@rfc-
> editor.org
> Subject: Re: AUTH48 [JM]: RFC 9033 <draft-ietf-6tisch-msf-18.txt> NOW
> AVAILABLE
> 
> 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