Re: [Iot-directorate] Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-rift-applicability-03

[[e-mail]]

Dear Samita Chakrabarti,


Thank you for the comments.


I will fix the definition and term issue which has been raised by several reviewers.


About the  IoT applicability, would you please offer me more information about IoT network concerning "a root gateway/switch ofa IoT  network"?






Thank you.








Best Regards,


 


魏月华 Yuehua Wei


M: [phone] E: [e-mail]









原始邮件



发件人：SamitaChakrabartiviaDatatracker
收件人：[e-mail];
抄送人：[e-mail];[e-mail];[e-mail];
日 期 ：2021年01月20日 01:14
主 题 ：Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-rift-applicability-03


Reviewer: Samita Chakrabarti
Review result: Ready with Nits
 
I have reviewed  draft-ietf-rift-applicability from IoT point of view.
 
The document describes routing in the Fat Tree ( mostly CLOS architecture)
applicability. I do not find any impact of this work on the IETF IoT networks.
The document methods and RIFT/Fat trees generally are not used in IETF IoT
protocols.  However RPL uses  directed graphs with a different protocol.  I did
not see any direct IoT applicability of this document to IoT networks. However,
 for larger IoT devices and switches one might extract some ideas out of this
document in the future.  Though I don't see direct IoT applicability, I still
wish to ask a question to the authors: will they view a root gateway/switch of
a IoT  network  to act as a leaf in the fat tree architecture ( example: DC
scenario) ?  If so, please consider adding a paragraph on IoT applicability in
RIFT.
 
In general, the document is full of acronyms that might be too familiar with
the routing area group ( PoD, TOF, ...), but it will help if the document has a
definition of terms section or a pointer to such document in the beginning ;
alternately, it can  add the acronyms in the relevant diagrams to understand
their usage.