Re: [Roll] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10: (with COMMENT)

Charles Perkins <charliep@lupinlodge.com> Wed, 18 August 2021 20:06 UTC

Return-Path: <charliep@lupinlodge.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 2F31E3A1B8E; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 13:06:24 -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 (1024-bit key) header.d=lupinlodge.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 8V2ysgEk_y2W; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 13:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from delivery.mailspamprotection.com (delivery.mailspamprotection.com [146.66.121.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E66B63A1B82; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 13:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 246.206.208.35.bc.googleusercontent.com ([35.208.206.246] helo=giowm1055.siteground.biz) by se18.mailspamprotection.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <charliep@lupinlodge.com>) id 1mGRpF-000AiG-Kg; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 15:06:17 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lupinlodge.com; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=DhLROql0Jj4Y6ZF1Imtu9/E0cFlKFcmvXQSbZHetiJw=; b=wkXk7HVv/Lph8fUNAgctWGfo+5 nmJ8cJH+Sme4Iuh8kBfZNwJV3H87Eu+KyKLcopSKbZUKMtuG9/6gWZWHZ1fRMWZDb7GHadQ14m09J T1o8LUM5juPC17kT9Uw5dN7hLEHseFWiJcqT0HbD1KQeRjfUOFNeAACznnN902lbxZHQ=;
Received: from [99.51.72.196] (port=63551 helo=[192.168.1.72]) by giowm1055.siteground.biz with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.90-.1) (envelope-from <charliep@lupinlodge.com>) id 1mGRpE-000FvN-Jz; Wed, 18 Aug 2021 20:06:12 +0000
To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, 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
References: <161841517905.8620.14903415282133221941@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Charles Perkins <charliep@lupinlodge.com>
Message-ID: <24245546-4508-801a-83d0-5a3776288048@lupinlodge.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 13:06:10 -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: <161841517905.8620.14903415282133221941@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-Originating-IP: 35.208.206.246
X-SpamExperts-Domain: giowm1055.siteground.biz
X-SpamExperts-Username: 35.208.206.246
Authentication-Results: mailspamprotection.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=35.208.206.246@giowm1055.siteground.biz
X-SpamExperts-Outgoing-Class: ham
X-SpamExperts-Outgoing-Evidence: Combined (0.12)
X-Recommended-Action: accept
X-Filter-ID: Pt3MvcO5N4iKaDQ5O6lkdGlMVN6RH8bjRMzItlySaT9uNNLGYqj4RE/UTkTDq7umPUtbdvnXkggZ 3YnVId/Y5jcf0yeVQAvfjHznO7+bT5xfhCjHc1rE8j8s8Zbm/wGXznzsYfkdUR16HjGz62pljkko TB1XoRIdpR5ZFOj8MnTOPzAiZwO0erKqGmrB0kNW7yD795EJLHugJKDmd9LZyfBlQ+yfeyWAPtDm XI1PtJNHkh02GMZpkpvzzOke7JxoQPrPgIKCOcN1qssFDA9lsDKCUy+RuevJVoQ1jGOH3u89lTcF 0nAicfQwnBE0p73+QyN5+sjOiEpUZ5Uk2j4wBT6uO5354BnWwUbwEhx5IoailnmzNnFcx5VcabXk cY6UvuMlM/ULZixCoUQzrzlFs8msY8kdAEA5kt/74QDG6uC80ROpCg9oXr6AOwqokc/amvmCla9O EyJVlncg7GFRaGUpm2NFwR4vh14nBpnjHnLr7Ev1WTPqxqiX5x7vZD2rI0fsTHgoRFFFPXopWULe ljuA70k+HW2oVWIWwWRpNStHZQU7M0Q2nOK+bh8czW+0M23gyg6iTVD83nl3tPApU+FvX34UTkPT xeYM/1bWYo0NgN9L3/12vRCURm+2Ccu+BPxuyrFKkkqEvRPEq1oSoIY2Fstvi8JdJ94OkJHwXX/p xOsB8gG0slV7ra6jI4BS1Camx3RQtw4/zVtTtR8UQx3X00KIweIqKiVBCOpeq2dHOu6/4Yn4xBuG Lu6ZpfiGPzOWY9pRusm6Xog2JaDeDiUG9ZlEUUTeGJ1w6jlQ2qDl5z+s+aWvnihjjOn1ih1J19p7 joqvJIR2NF0e4NdplFs765aq/7Ihe5JpNEYIVsOMyGnDIpSchlco6RIDoNg/gpqJlqCh0E7QP78U adwZo0RVGZM+1wcbqYXM3ytmvbBz/byN7FajYmOyHLF0nUatASJFC/49WOPBr5nlEUI4xIdvScbF 9uOttIe17rfNDojlsWJoA/N4L72OMz//UQUP4StMAjppagICNJ3x+Wx8+8dbWWCjKJ3i/S5kopHS u52Un+nFMMkRd5k6PHc0U1eHEuy1kJU1AECVdPpwDWSH/uAI7cGNN9BxLjilPAh3ScFXvV2KdaAj /nU2mVpeWRaUnWEFS9JKrkl3Ur0zyZYa70EosCM6yKE4UgLi62ftY8GSVMUV8U9klGSrRKkRdrjy 4U0zK4PaU3TrmieveHT3EVyQnFm970cs29CRQdigsnfVnExWYQsqagncXJk1ANiFw6nIoDr0sXUZ 7YZoZ/GZ+vxMoGEiehQ9Elnyjmh6qKiCFhXHcMhioAWBU337SKMu3jR5NeVaJQBh0uawl0Cg8vG/ FKl+0YpjSy3Xdimy+RnFRZ06/nbCSVtpoXfNhlxO6xz6gnb35zbtEekAsVsRnbdSYnSOwa/RltQp UlvcMGaEjYJNBWxsMROy4gulq6Zm
X-Report-Abuse-To: spam@quarantine1.mailspamprotection.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/LN0Ks4_dQ87ZWd26-QMMbSuOje8>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 23:29:06 -0700
Subject: Re: [Roll] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10: (with COMMENT)
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 20:06:25 -0000

Hello Lars,

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

Regarding the following:

 >  Lars Eggert No Objection
 > Comment (2021-04-14)

 > Section 2, paragraph 1, comment:
 >> 2.  Terminology

 > Is there some logic as to which terms are capitalized and which are 
not? (Also
 > in the text.)

It is meant to improve the readability by selectively capitalizing certain
terms what we felt appropriate.  This is often very subjective.  Do you have
any suggestions for improvement?

 > 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > All comments below are very minor change suggestions that you may 
choose to
 > incorporate in some way (or ignore), as you see fit. There is no need 
to let me
 > know what you did with these suggestions.

 > Section 4.1, paragraph 10, nit:
 >>    X
 >>       Reserved.

 > Any recommendation what this should be set to on send?

We should say it is set to 0.

 > Section 4.2, paragraph 9, nit:
 >>    X
 >>       Reserved.

 > Any recommendation what this should be set to on send?

We should say it is set to 0.

 > Section 4.2, paragraph 13, nit:
 >>    Rsv
 >>       MUST be initialized to zero and ignored upon reception.

 > I guess these bits are reserved? Could you not just mark them X?

We can use XXX instead of Rsv.


 > Section 4.3, paragraph 6, nit:
 >>                Figure 3: ART Option format for AODV-RPL MOP

 > X is missing from the description of the fields.

Fixed.

 > Section 1, paragraph 4, nit:
 > -    functionality to support routes with birectional asymmetric links.
 > +    functionality to support routes with bidirectional asymmetric links.
 > +                                           ++

Fixed.

 > Section 5, paragraph 7, nit:
 > -    of cells used in 6tisch), a priori knowledge (e.g. link quality
 > +    of cells used in 6tisch), a priori knowledge (e.g., link quality
 > +                                                      +

Fixed.

 > Section 5, paragraph 7, nit:
 > -    for evaluating link state (see([RFC7548], [RFC7276], [co-ioam]) MAY
 > -                                  ^
 > +    for evaluating link state (see [RFC7548], [RFC7276], [co-ioam]) MAY
 > +                                  ^

Fixed.

 > Section 6.2.1, paragraph 4, nit:
 > -       the downward (i.e. towards the TargNode) direction of the link
 > +       the downward (i.e., towards the TargNode) direction of the link
 > +                         +

Fixed.

 > Section 6.3.1, paragraph 2, nit:
 > -    symmetric route along which both directions satisfy the Objective
 > -                    ------------
 > +    symmetric route both of whose directions satisfy the Objective
 > +                        +++++++++

Fixed.

 > Section 6.3.1, paragraph 2, nit:
 > -    routes (i.e.  S=0).  Selection between a qualified symmetric route
 > -                ^
 > +    routes (i.e., S=0).  Selection between a qualified symmetric route
 > +

Fixed.

Regards,
Charlie P.


On 4/14/2021 8:46 AM, Lars Eggert via Datatracker wrote:
> Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10: 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-aodv-rpl/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Section 2, paragraph 1, comment:
>> 2.  Terminology
> Is there some logic as to which terms are capitalized and which are not? (Also
> in the text.)
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> All comments below are very minor change suggestions that you may choose to
> incorporate in some way (or ignore), as you see fit. There is no need to let me
> know what you did with these suggestions.
>
> Section 4.1, paragraph 10, nit:
>>     X
>>        Reserved.
> Any recommendation what this should be set to on send?
>
> Section 4.2, paragraph 9, nit:
>>     X
>>        Reserved.
> Any recommendation what this should be set to on send?
>
> Section 4.2, paragraph 13, nit:
>>     Rsv
>>        MUST be initialized to zero and ignored upon reception.
> I guess these bits are reserved? Could you not just mark them X?
>
> Section 4.3, paragraph 6, nit:
>>                 Figure 3: ART Option format for AODV-RPL MOP
> X is missing from the description of the fields.
>
> Section 1, paragraph 4, nit:
> -    functionality to support routes with birectional asymmetric links.
> +    functionality to support routes with bidirectional asymmetric links.
> +                                           ++
>
> Section 5, paragraph 7, nit:
> -    of cells used in 6tisch), a priori knowledge (e.g. link quality
> +    of cells used in 6tisch), a priori knowledge (e.g., link quality
> +                                                      +
>
> Section 5, paragraph 7, nit:
> -    for evaluating link state (see([RFC7548], [RFC7276], [co-ioam]) MAY
> -                                  ^
> +    for evaluating link state (see [RFC7548], [RFC7276], [co-ioam]) MAY
> +                                  ^
>
> Section 6.2.1, paragraph 4, nit:
> -       the downward (i.e. towards the TargNode) direction of the link
> +       the downward (i.e., towards the TargNode) direction of the link
> +                         +
>
> Section 6.3.1, paragraph 2, nit:
> -    symmetric route along which both directions satisfy the Objective
> -                    ------------
> +    symmetric route both of whose directions satisfy the Objective
> +                        +++++++++
>
> Section 6.3.1, paragraph 2, nit:
> -    routes (i.e.  S=0).  Selection between a qualified symmetric route
> -                ^
> +    routes (i.e., S=0).  Selection between a qualified symmetric route
> +                ^
>
>
>