Re: [lp-wan] [IoT-DIR] Iotdir early review of draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-08

Hi Suresh, Pascal, all,

First, I’d like to thank Samita for the review, which once more reinsures that the document is at an excellent level and with excellent quality. Thanks, Samita, for catching some final minor details, and thanks to Stephen for fixing them right away.

Then again, nothing is perfect, and there always will be place for improvement. My impression is that at this stage the document fulfills its goal, so getting it back to make it more perfect would seem like counter-productive. I like the idea of having a glossary document published.. but then again, I don’t think a glossary will actually suffice to describe what RRC does, or the different aspects of 3GPP technology (or any other for that matter). Maybe this will be the start for a new book on LPWANs?

So, back to the point, I agree with Suresh that at this stage, unless there are obvious typos or errors, we should continue with the process.

Best,
Alexander

> Le 6 févr. 2018 à 18:39, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> a écrit :
> 
> Same here, Suresh. 
> 
> Samita ‘s recommendations all make sense but arrive too late in the process.
> 
> Maybe We could ask the group or the IOT dir to work out a glossary and add it as reference at publish time?
> 
> Pascal
> 
> Le 6 févr. 2018 à 18:24, Suresh Krishnan <Suresh@kaloom.com <mailto:Suresh@kaloom.com>> a écrit :
> 
>> Hi Stephen/Samita,
>> 
>> (Removed the IETF Discussion list)
>> 
>>> On Feb 6, 2018, at 10:10 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie <mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Samita,
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the review. As this document has at this stage been
>>> through IESG evaluation, I think it's best to avoid changes if
>>> possible, but I'll be guided by the responsible AD, (i.e. if
>>> Suresh tells me he thinks some change is needed, I'll do it.)
>>> For such cases below I just say I think it's a bit late for
>>> the change suggested.
>> 
>> Yep. I think this review was due 2017/12/01 and the draft has already gone through IESG evaluation. At this point I would not like to make changes unless they are errors or obvious typos. Depending on the type and amount of changes made, I can recycle the document through the IESG if needed. Stephen’s accepted changes look fine to me and if they are fine with you Samita you can submit a new revision.
>> 
>> Alex/Pascal,
>>   Any thoughts on this?
>> 
>> Regards
>> Suresh
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> lp-wan mailing list
> lp-wan@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lp-wan