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

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

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AD1812D516; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 21:15:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.947
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I38eBaNbLc7O; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 21:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7C6912D4FB; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 21:15:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; 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 ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 09 Jun 2016 04:14:59 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (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 ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 00:14:58 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 00:14:58 -0400
From: "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <>
To: Suresh Krishnan <>, The IESG <>
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: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-13: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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 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
>for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>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
[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
   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.