Re: [C310] AUTH48 [JM]: RFC 9032 <draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-14.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] Based on Michael's reply on the c310 list, we have
updated this title as follows. Please review.

Original:
IEEE 802.15.4 Information Element encapsulation of 6TiSCH Join 
and Enrollment Information

Current:
Encapsulation of 6TiSCH Join and Enrollment Information Elements

Also, should the abbreviated title (which appears in the running 
header of the PDF file) be updated? Seems "ICMP" is not mentioned 
within the document.

Current:
   IE for ICMPv6
-->


2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear 
in the title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. 
-->


3) <!-- [rfced]  Would the following improve the readability of the 
sentence?  We found Section 4.5.2 to provide a better overview 
of EB roles (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8180#section-4.5.2). 
Should the section number here be changed?

Current:
   As explained in Section 6 of [RFC8180], the EB has a number of
   purposes: synchronization of the Absolute Slot Number (ASN) and Join
   Metric, carrying the timeslot template identifier, carrying the
   channel hopping sequence identifier, and indicating the TSCH
   slotframe.

Perhaps:
   As explained in Section 4.5.2 of [RFC8180], the EB has a number of
   purposes: it carries synchronization information such as the 
   Absolute Slot Number (ASN) and Join Metric and identifiers for 
   the timeslot template and the channel hopping sequence, and it 
   indicates the TSCH slotframe.
-->


4) <!-- [rfced]  In the following sentence, perhaps "Join Proxy"
instead of "Join Assistant" is meant?

Current:
   3.  A new pledge may have to receive many EBs before it can pick an
       appropriate network and/or closest Join Assistant to attach to.
-->


5) <!--[rfced] How may this be rephrased to clarify and to avoid using the
citation as an adjective?

Current:
   The PANID is part of the [IEEE.802.15.4] Layer 2 header: it is ...

Perhaps:
   The PANID is part of the Layer 2 header as defined in [IEEE.802.15.4]: 
   it is ...
-->


6) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify this sentence. Does "conceived 
of in a similar fashion as" mean "considered similar to"?

Current:
   The PANID provides a context similar to the
   Extended Service Set ID (ESSID) in 802.11 networking and can be
   conceived of in a similar fashion as the 802.3 Ethernet VLAN tag in
   that it provides context for all Layer 2 addresses.

Perhaps:
   The PANID provides a context similar to the
   Extended Service Set ID (ESSID) in 802.11 networking and can be
   considered similar to the 802.3 Ethernet VLAN tag in
   that it provides context for all Layer 2 addresses.
--> 


7) <!-- [rfced]  We note that the following is inconsistently
capitalized. How would you like it to be capitalized?

PAN priority field - 3 instances
pan priority field - 3 instances
-->


8) <!-- [rfced]  May we capitalize "reserved" here to match the 
formatting of the rest of the definition list? 

Current:
   res:  reserved bits MUST be ignored upon receipt and SHOULD be set
      to 0 when sending.

Perhaps:
   res:  Reserved bits MUST be ignored upon receipt and SHOULD be set
      to 0 when sending.

Or perhaps:
   res:  Any reserved bits MUST be ignored upon receipt and SHOULD be 
      set to 0 when sending.
-->


9) <!-- [rfced]  In the sentence below, is perhaps "Join Proxy" 
instead of "enrollment proxy" meant?

Current:
      A priority of 0x7f indicates that the announcer should never be
      considered as a viable enrollment proxy. 
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/jm/ar


On May 12, 2021, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2021/05/12

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

Diff file of the text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9032-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9032-rfcdiff.html (side-by-side)

Diff of the XML: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9032-xmldiff1.html

The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
diff files of the XML.  

Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9032.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9032.form.xml


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9032

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9032 (draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-14)

Title            : IEEE 802.15.4 Information Element encapsulation of 6TiSCH Join and Enrollment Information
Author(s)        : D. Dujovne, M. Richardson
WG Chair(s)      : Pascal Thubert, Thomas Watteyne
Area Director(s) : Erik Kline, Éric Vyncke