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

[Carles Gomez Montenegro <[e-mail]>]

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)