[Roll] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. I seems that all cases have been
thought of :-) Good job! and having a shorter path between two RPL nodes can be
benefitial of course.

Please find below one blocking (but probably trivial to fix) DISCUSS point,
some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated), and some
nits.

Special thanks to Peter Van der Stock for the IoT directorate review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10-iotdir-telechat-van-der-stok-2021-04-15/

To be honest, the lack of reply to Peter's review by the authors or by the WG a
little bit suprising (thank you to the RTG AD though).

Minor regret on the age of the document shepherd's write-up dated 2 years ago
and about the -06 version. Little is said about the WG consensus. But, I am
trusting the responsible AD on the consensus.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== DISCUSS ==

A very trivial to fix but I do want to have a justification of using
"point-to-point" (typically used over the two sides of a single link) vs.
"peer-to-peer" (typically used over multiple links). Is it intentional by the
ROLL WG ? Did I fail to understand the purpose of this document ? (quite
possible of course!). I am afraid that many people will interpret the
"point-to-point" like me.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 4.3 --
Figure 3 has a 'X' while the text has a 'r' ;)

Any reason why using "Floor((7+(Prefix Length))/8) octets" rather than the
simple "Ceil(Prefix Length/8)" ?

-- Section 6.1 --
"Each node maintains a sequence number" does it impact constrained nodes ?

== NITS ==

-- Abstract --
"the links between source and target node are asymmetric" should this be
"nodes" (plural) ?

-- section 1 (and possibly others) --
I believe that the usual way to introduce acronyms is to first write the
expansion than the acronym itself. So " RPL (Routing Protocol for Low-Power and
Lossy Networks)" does not seem to fit ;)

-- Section 5 --
"R is an intermediate router" or "Rs are intermediate routers" ?