Re: [Lwip] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-11: (with COMMENT)

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Fri, 30 October 2020 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.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 0DDEA3A0ED6; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 07:12:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 72seteROp3VV; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 07:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-f47.google.com (mail-vs1-f47.google.com [209.85.217.47]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 664573A0ED5; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 07:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-f47.google.com with SMTP id u7so3450518vsq.11; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 07:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8RYun8iaF0mupfmA6GWe7JbGaF0YqyzgrsagFutU5II=; b=acSh6UyhiItecRN76EH2fwob/l4+GAOx6of+FQ8NeL6E03r2MG9QwXaqMcY6yt4Cmw H19CF1ztVyIkm5se6vGLGwW0VjBJOwBL/TdQDVB2dZlu6WjoWzCF93oPNc3lMRn3sFAW oo20jduu4mnFOBfO78D9tprAVulcJRaezkCZnPS1jhuGfm4SuidG/ZOuKuY5SWEKrLcT Q+fTsfV2IaEsm3mSAaQg7Cfhp5edgljHu/hErjJpD24T04VNIE5mUPt6lKIGcjj2MgBW FL6vDBD9EhCwcUUNtKztBGuR6bj2kOc+1jz+RPnLUf2XXarc1GhR8rIQI4e9YOr27j+B 21/w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533JLYc4NYythW99cYbzfz1RQWFgJ0HWeKNB6PBs60f8DKI4bYU/ GSj3FpOPzqk3vVHHxjxXkYgPVhl7PtcCtn6kgKevrRimyaw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxAw2bZOcLqVD8zTwxdpNnoiVdBsrUfAim2VZ8a9WPvJiTo6JSzseCMws4hmRgDzeUinUoM6wzBMyJi+cNaFaM=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:687:: with SMTP id 129mr7215604vsg.37.1604067129146; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 07:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <160333546362.17929.16172777891741048194@ietfa.amsl.com> <14e5a4ce9d0d8a1477f5364eba0be948.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <14e5a4ce9d0d8a1477f5364eba0be948.squirrel@webmail.entel.upc.edu>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 10:11:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJJBmvZs2ugj1_A++sxoC0h+BhOy3Sx92zZQcexBGwmXJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Carles Gomez Montenegro <carlesgo@entel.upc.edu>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks@ietf.org, lwig-chairs@ietf.org, lwip@ietf.org, Zhen Cao <zhencao.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lwip/jyV5MTUy4-T-7pKGQo3MHzzQGRI>
Subject: Re: [Lwip] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-11: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: lwip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Lightweight IP stack. Official mailing list for IETF LWIG Working Group." <lwip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lwip>, <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 14:12:12 -0000

Thanks, Carles; I appreciate your addressing my comments.

Barry

On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 4:57 AM Carles Gomez Montenegro
<carlesgo@entel.upc.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi Barry,
>
> Thank you very much for your review!
>
> We just submitted revisions -12 and -13, which aim at addressing the
> comments received from the IESG and related reviewers:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-13
>
> Please find below our inline responses:
>
>
> > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-11: No Objection
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Thanks for a useful document.  I just have a few editorial things here:
> >
> > — Section 1 —
> >
> >    However, TCP has been
> >    criticized (often, unfairly) as a protocol for the IoT.  In fact,
> >    some TCP features are not optimal for IoT scenarios, such as
> >    relatively long header size, unsuitability for multicast, and always-
> >    confirmed data delivery.  However, …
> >
> > Both of these sentences have nit-level problems that make them a bit off.
> > The
> > first sounds like the criticism is that TCP is a protocol for IoT (rather
> > than
> > that it’s not suitable for that usage).  The second has the examples
> > misplaced,
> > so it look as though they’re examples of IoT scenarios (rather than
> > examples of
> > TCP features).  And “in fact” has the wrong feel here: it would
> > normally be
> > used to contradict the previous sentence, not to explain it.  (And two
> > “however”s in close proximity also feels awkward)  I suggest this fix:
> >
> > NEW
> >    TCP has been
> >    criticized, often unfairly, as a protocol that’s unsuitable for the
> >    IoT.  It is true that some TCP features, such as its relatively long
> >    header size, unsuitability for multicast, and always-confirmed data
> >    delivery, are not optimal for IoT scenarios.  However, …
>
> Thanks for your detailed explanation, and thanks also for your proposed
> new text, which definitely reads much better. We have incorporated your
> new text in the latest draft update.
>
> > END
> >
> >    TCP is also used by non-IETF application-
> >    layer protocols in the IoT space such as the Message Queue Telemetry
> >    Transport (MQTT) and its lightweight variants.
> >
> > It’s “Message Queuing Telemetry Transport”, and an informative
> > reference to
> > ISO/IEC 20922 <https://www.iso.org/standard/69466.html> wouldn’t be a
> > bad thing.
>
> Thank you as well. We have made the text change, and we have also added an
> informational reference to the MQTT specification, as suggested.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Carles (on behalf of the authors)
>