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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Carles; I appreciate your addressing my comments.

Barry

On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 4:57 AM Carles Gomez Montenegro
<[e-mail]> 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)
>