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

Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 19 April 2021 15:44 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: roll@ietf.org
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 164253A36C9; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 08:44:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: 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, mariainesrobles@googlemail.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.28.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <161884704906.8680.6192562844809236074@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 08:44:09 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/T_LhC29MgtEhgRiBFNHiFBh0Odo>
Subject: [Roll] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 15:44:09 -0000

Francesca Palombini 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Thank you for the work on this document. I have some minor comments/questions


1. -----

Section 2.

FP: Thank you for this very extensive (and useful) terminology section. I would
suggest to add a sentence to say that the reader is expected to be familiar
with RFC 6550 terminology. Alternatively, it might be good to add terms defined
there and used in this document, such as DODAG and DODAGID, into this section
as well. It also might improve readability to add references to documents when
appropriate (for example, DIO could reference RFC 6550).

2. -----

   to OrigNode.  Intermediate routers join the Paired DODAGs based on
   the Rank as calculated from the DIO message.  Henceforth in this

FP: Please add a reference to where Rank is first defined, and/or add it to the

3. -----

   Target Prefix / Address
      (variable-length field) An IPv6 destination address or prefix.
      The Prefix Length field contains the number of valid leading bits
      in the prefix.  The length of the field is the least number of
      octets that can contain all of the bits of the Prefix, in other
      words Floor((7+(Prefix Length))/8) octets.  The remaining bits in

FP: "Floor((7+(Prefix Length))/8)" I am not sure where the "7+" comes from.
Noting that the Prefix Length is 7-bit long, I am tempted to say that the
number of octets calculated here also includes Prefix Length, however that is
not clear from the sentence above ("The length of the field" - I assume the
field refers to the Target Prefix / Address only). I think some clarification
is necessary.