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

Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@earthlink.net> Wed, 18 August 2021 20:42 UTC

Return-Path: <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
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 294E23A1CE9; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 13:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=earthlink.net
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 hoUxnmQSskf0; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 13:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta-201a.oxsus-vadesecure.net (mta-201a.oxsus-vadesecure.net [51.81.229.180]) (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 0C9943A1CE3; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 13:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; bh=8D0+4fpZzrPphMQuzOeuvPt5GpCPwGdoOpAPSD cmQXw=; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=earthlink.net; h=from:reply-to:subject: date:to:cc:resent-date:resent-from:resent-to:resent-cc:in-reply-to: references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post: list-owner:list-archive; q=dns/txt; s=dk12062016; t=1629319322; x=1629924122; b=kqp3rkF0/o0o9fFM7brKWlkdn7E9T9f432uuWpVg6jm0tQBOGWt433f PYmZ4cK5LrSB7K4GLfTxI5SxGQbJ1OZ/VvepupjQqu1SLSoQSxk6snoJFNyYA4tCOkJgzFS tvJ3xcziP5QsNXXMsg6l+zNM7sdpUWGjUimqzAGln09tPWb3GwXOE7TuhWfyTibpZL7Zwu4 i2tRG+FQ4BGmZrT5Jwzy2IKugtTgJ/YRAEVm2eFyX1kZWPpxY2BS3ArrRSvZlQUiXqdMepf q6E0kwY1audProcJLWWowyaFEcB/bt1SCRiOD2cEFTCPIFkXQmC193wAmsHtaMWABBHn40b e9Q==
Received: from [192.168.1.72] ([99.51.72.196]) by smtp.oxsus-vadesecure.net ESMTP oxsus2nmtao01p with ngmta id 86e2bdb9-169c814a5f334149; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 20:42:02 +0000
To: =?UTF-8?Q?=c3=89ric_Vyncke?= <evyncke@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl@ietf.org, roll-chairs@ietf.org, roll@ietf.org, Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, consultancy@vanderstok.org
References: <161899828182.30762.17925223604861378275@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Charlie Perkins <charles.perkins@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <4e7b8d85-9b65-bd8b-067c-c8c3a33056a2@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 13:41:59 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <161899828182.30762.17925223604861378275@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/KeS0kh0FT2iRL6XGDwwhp01zPaw>
Subject: Re: [Roll] =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke=27s_Discuss_on_draft-ietf-roll?= =?utf-8?q?-aodv-rpl-10=3A_=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 20:42:10 -0000

Hello Éric,

Please excuse the unusually long delay it has taken for us to respond to 
your comments.

Regarding the following:

 >  Éric Vyncke Discuss
 > Discuss (2021-04-21)

 > 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).

Please excuse the delay.  It has been on my radar for the last couple of
months in a very crowded field.

 > 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.

I think there has been discussion about this in previous commentary, so I
will count this comment as having been resolved.  Please lt me know if there
is disagreement and more resolution is needed.  I am happy to change all
instances of P2P to mean peer-to-peer.  However, both terms do not 
explicitly
bring to mind the main point -- which is that the tree root does NOT have to
be in the route.


 > Comment (2021-04-21)

 > == COMMENTS ==

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

Fixed.

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

Thanks for this suggestion.  I don't remember why we didn't use that 
instead,
nobody seems to have thought of it!


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

Yes, to the extent that it requires 16 bits of memory and the amount of 
power
to maintain that memory.  Should we mention that?


 > == NITS ==

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

Fixed.


 > -- 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 ;)

Fixed.


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

How about "Each R is an intermediate router"?

Regards,
Charlie P.


On 4/21/2021 2:44 AM, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker wrote:
> 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" ?
>
>
>