Re: [Roll] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-13: (with COMMENT)

"Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <ncamwing@cisco.com> Thu, 09 June 2016 04:15 UTC

Return-Path: <ncamwing@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AD1812D516; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 21:15:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 I38eBaNbLc7O; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 21:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7C6912D4FB; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 21:15:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2623; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1465445704; x=1466655304; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=wkUL0N8a0kS3BJXHSXv7YBS+om2NPZwbbCUV/xsRPoU=; b=F1Ab4P2zhTnkpfVeRk/FzmvjhYHr4UaaaUGOsYmyYnQxDR+W2D393Sx/ be/qju2M/3F1Li/3cuWuvP0Ln16qGZqb1InFThXkC1cSBswy78lJG//fq uN7RyRmjmyR+52XJ33LlpFKeSJdWhuXNYD6U9Pg2B8dSQ7FiSs7ZlIm6R 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D1AQAZ7VhX/4wNJK1dgz5WfQa4f4IPg?= =?us-ascii?q?XoihXECgUQ4FAEBAQEBAQFlJ4RGAQEEeRACAQhGMiUCBAENBYgvDr4bAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBFwWKdIQSEQEGSIUoBYgHhhqKLgGGAogjgWmEUoMsh?= =?us-ascii?q?TiGPokjAR42gjmBNW4BiFI2fwEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,442,1459814400"; d="scan'208";a="282634312"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 09 Jun 2016 04:14:59 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-004.cisco.com (xch-rtp-004.cisco.com [64.101.220.144]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u594Exb9028775 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 9 Jun 2016 04:14:59 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-004.cisco.com (64.101.220.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 00:14:58 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 00:14:58 -0400
From: "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <ncamwing@cisco.com>
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-13: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRpWuSrELClrBzxkueLnDmL2OknZ/gYvoA
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 04:14:58 +0000
Message-ID: <D37E16FB.174964%ncamwing@cisco.com>
References: <20160503184237.8197.30865.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160503184237.8197.30865.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.2.160219
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.50.235]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <BBFE02C33FA1A34CBB05451170878A95@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/DfQjvxMQ6ap0zrm8Vuhs4gcYSzI>
Cc: "roll-chairs@ietf.org" <roll-chairs@ietf.org>, "roll@ietf.org" <roll@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami@ietf.org>, "mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca" <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-13: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/roll/>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 04:15:07 -0000

Hi Suresh,

Thanks the comments, please see responses/comments below:

On 5/3/16, 11:42 AM, "Suresh Krishnan" <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>;
wrote:

>Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
>draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-13: 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-roll-applicability-ami/
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>COMMENT:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Section 1.2: Required reading - Why is the item [surveySG] in required
>reading not part of the normative references?
[NCW] I missed this one as we previously had discussions as to which should
be Normative vs. Informative.  Given that this is required reading, I
will move it back to normative.


>
>Section 1.3: Please expand RPL before first use and add a reference to
>RFC6550
[NCW] I¹d presumed having the title be first use would suffice.  But will
add here with reference.


>
>Section 2: Is this section really required? Seems like a summarization of
>the RPL RFC. At least consider removing the part that starts with  "RPL
>was designed to meet the following application requirements:" and
>mentions a list of requirement RFCs. This list does not seem relevant
>here and is also covered in the RPL spec itself.
[NCW] A summary was felt needed to relax enforcement of readers read the
full RFC.  But can remove the reference as suggested.


>
>Section 4.1: This does not sound right. Isn't the periodic meter read
>traffic going the other direction? " The traffic generated by the
>head-end server and destined to metering devices is dominated by periodic
>meter reads,"
[NCW+DP] We are missing the trigger, so we can update the sentence to read:
³The traffic generated by the head-end server and
   destined to metering devices is dominated by periodic meter read
requests,
   while traffic generated by the metering devices is typically
   uniformly spread over some periodic read time-window.²


>
>Section 7.4.1: Please add a reference the trickle algorithm at first use.
>e.g. "Trickle [RFC6206] was designed to be..."
[NCW] Will do.

>
>