Re: [C310] AUTH48 [JM]: RFC 9032 <draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-14.txt> NOW AVAILABLE

[Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]>]

Diego, Michael,

Thank you for your quick responses! We have updated the document based 
on your feedback:

    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9032.txt
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9032.pdf
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9032.html
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9032.xml
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9032-diff.html
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9032-auth48diff.html

We'll await further word from you regarding other AUTH48 changes and/or 
approval.

Best regards,
RFC Editor/jm

On 5/12/21 6:54 PM, Prof. Diego Dujovne wrote:
> Dear all,
>                I answer below.
> Regards,
>
>             Diego
>
> Le mer. 12 mai 2021 à 18:15, Michael Richardson <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> a écrit :
>
>
>     I am reading:
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9032-rfcdiff.html
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9032-rfcdiff.html>
>     (side-by-side)
>
>     These are my comments, and I see that almost all of them should be
>     taken with
>     a grain of salt.  I grew up in a bilingual Canadian province (EH!)
>     with the
>     highest Tim Horton's per-capita and nobody actually taught me
>     English in school.
>     (Mon Francais est aussi un poutine)
>
>
> Neither am I a native speaker, so I am glad to learn from your 
> suggestions.
>
>
>     You changed:
>         Neighbor Discovery (ND) could even more scarce.
>     to  Neighbor Discovery (ND) could be even scarcer.
>
>
>     My limited experience with many readers is that although "scarcer"
>     is a word
>     and means exactly what we need it to, that it isn't as well
>     understood.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>     You changed:
>        1.  Use of a multicast slot by even a non-malicious unauthenticated
>            node for a Router Solicitation (RS) may overwhelm that time
>     slot.
>
>        2.  It may require many seconds of on-time before a new pledge
>            receives a Router Advertisement (RA) that it can use.
>
>     to:
>
>     1.  Use of a multicast slot by even a non-malicious unauthenticated
>         node for an RS may overwhelm that timeslot.
>     2.  It may require many seconds of on-time before a new pledge
>         receives an RA that it can use.
>
>     I had explicitely expanded RS and RA a second time here, because I
>     found that
>     many Layer 2 knowledgeable reasons were not as familiar with these
>     Layer 3
>     terms, but that saying it again helped them get it.
>     I know that this goes against "define it the first time", but I
>     felt that the
>     Introduction needed to be more easily understood.
>
>
> I agree. I see that "an" is used because of the pronunciation of the 
> acronyms RA and RS.
>
>
>     You changed "an RPL" to "a RPL" in:
>         is to serve as a RPL parent [RFC6550] within a particular network
>
>     and this just sounds wrong to me.  I dunno...
>
>
> In RFC 6550 it is used as "a RPL", because it is pronounced RPL as 
> "ripl"  I guess.
>
>
>     I'm pretty happy with the entire document as you've edited so..
>
>     --
>     Michael Richardson <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>                Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>
>
>
> -- 
> DIEGO DUJOVNE
> Profesor Asociado
> Escuela de Informática y Telecomunicaciones
> Facultad de Ingeniería - Universidad Diego Portales - Chile
> www.ingenieria.udp.cl <http://www.ingenieria.udp.cl>
> (56 2) 676 8125