IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lwip] WGLC for lwig-terminology

"Dijk, Esko" <esko.dijk@philips.com> Thu, 18 April 2013 08:52 UTC

Return-Path: <esko.dijk@philips.com>
X-Original-To: lwip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lwip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34B2721F8ED5 for <lwip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 01:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.67
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.929, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9VRajsqFu7L4 for <lwip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 01:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tx2outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (tx2ehsobe004.messaging.microsoft.com [65.55.88.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85BDA21F8ED4 for <lwip@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 01:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail220-tx2-R.bigfish.com (10.9.14.231) by TX2EHSOBE013.bigfish.com (10.9.40.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:52:00 +0000
Received: from mail220-tx2 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail220-tx2-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5808BBC0530; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:52:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.55.7.222; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:mail.philips.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -31
X-BigFish: VPS-31(zz15d6O9251J542I217bIzz1f42h1fc6h1ee6h1de0h1fdah1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ahzz1033IL8275dhz2dh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1155h)
Received: from mail220-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail220-tx2 (MessageSwitch) id 1366275118115553_22660; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:51:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TX2EHSMHS017.bigfish.com (unknown [10.9.14.237]) by mail220-tx2.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10465B80059; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:51:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.philips.com (157.55.7.222) by TX2EHSMHS017.bigfish.com (10.9.99.117) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:51:57 +0000
Received: from 011-DB3MPN2-083.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com ([169.254.3.176]) by 011-DB3MMR1-007.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com ([10.128.28.57]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.011; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:51:50 +0000
From: "Dijk, Esko" <esko.dijk@philips.com>
To: "Cao Zhen (CZ)" <caozhen@chinamobile.com>, "lwip@ietf.org" <lwip@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lwip] WGLC for lwig-terminology
Thread-Index: Ac4zYMPX/q/pzk/ARPipDrdU0yerAQIreMQQ
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:51:50 +0000
Message-ID: <031DD135F9160444ABBE3B0C36CED618C11457@011-DB3MPN2-083.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com>
References: <014001ce3369$1794bf50$46be3df0$@chinamobile.com>
In-Reply-To: <014001ce3369$1794bf50$46be3df0$@chinamobile.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [194.171.252.103]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: philips.com
Subject: Re: [Lwip] WGLC for lwig-terminology
X-BeenThere: lwip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Lightweight IP stack <lwip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lwip>, <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lwip>
List-Post: <mailto:lwip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip>, <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:52:03 -0000

Dear Cao,

I support publication of this document. However I still see a few things that could be improved prior to publication:

section 2.1 " and available power." -> should it be "and available power/energy." ?

section 2.2.1. ; term "MSL" -> perhaps write it out in full here. Similar as done with the DTN term in the same section.

secion 2.3.1; one sentence I found very cryptic. Perhaps to be rephrased:
        It is not clear that "LLN" is much more specific than "interesting" or "the network characteristics that RPL has been designed for".

section 4.3: could we mention here the term "sleepy device" as being equivalent, or an alternative for, the "Always-off" class?
        I've seen the term "sleepy" more often used than the term "Always-off". The latter term may be confusing (try explaining to a colleague that you want to communicate with an always-off device...)

regards,
Esko

-----Original Message-----
From: lwip-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:lwip-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cao Zhen (CZ)
Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 10:23
To: lwip@ietf.org
Subject: [Lwip] WGLC for lwig-terminology

Dear All,

Discussion of lwig-terminology appears to have completed. The authors think this document is ready for working-group last call.

This is a two-week working-group last call for draft-ietf-lwig-terminology, for publication as an informational RFC. The working group last call ends at _April 20_

Please send your reviews and comments to the mailing list.  If you have reviewed the document, please do indicate whether you think it should go forward.

Thanks and regards,
Co-chairs



_______________________________________________
Lwip mailing list
Lwip@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip

________________________________
The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email