Re: [Lwip] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Carle for addressing my DISCUSS point (which was trivial to fix ;) )

I have cleared my DISCUSS position on the data tracker

Regards and thanks again for the work done by the authors and the WG

-éric

-----Original Message-----
From: Carles Gomez Montenegro <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, 30 October 2020 at 09:18
To: Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Lwip] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

    Hi Éric,

    Thank you very much for your review!

    We just submitted revision -12, which aims at addressing the comments
    received from the IESG and related reviewers:
    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-12

    Please find below our inline responses:


    > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
    > draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-11: Discuss
    >
    > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
    > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
    > introductory paragraph, however.)
    >
    >
    > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
    > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
    >
    >
    > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
    > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks/
    >
    >
    >
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > DISCUSS:
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > Thank you for the work put into this document. It is an important topic
    > and the
    > document is both easy to ready and detailed.

    Thank you for your kind words.

    > Please find below one trivial DISCUSS point and a couple of non-blocking
    > COMMENT points but please also check: - Ines Robles IoT directorate
    > review:
    >         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-11-iotdir-telechat-robles-2020-10-20/
    > - Bernie Volz Internet directorate review:
    >         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-11-intdir-telechat-volz-2020-10-20/

    Yes, the latest revision is intended to address the comments received on
    -11, including those by Inés and Bernie.

    > I hope that this helps to improve the document,

    It did help, thank you.

    > Regards,
    >
    > -éric
    >
    > == DISCUSS ==
    >
    > Please replace all RFC 2460 references to RFC 8200. Trivial to fix ;-)

    Done. ;-)

    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > COMMENT:
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > == COMMENTS ==
    >
    > Should a reference to RFC 8900 be added in the MTU discussion in section
    > 4.1 ?

    A reference to RFC 8900 has been added accordingly.

    > -- Section 2 --
    > As noted by many, the BCP 14 boiler plate is the old one and the normative
    > terminology is not used in this informational document. => remove it ?

    Agreed. We removed Section 2.

    Thanks,

    Carles (on behalf of the authors)