Re: [Roll] [roll] #127: Editorial Comments for draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04

"roll issue tracker" <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org> Tue, 21 May 2013 01:27 UTC

Return-Path: <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org>
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 8103921F9625 for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 May 2013 18:27:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vuBoGECaDJoE for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 May 2013 18:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EC8221F965A for <roll@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 May 2013 18:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45988 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1UebMq-0006RD-9J; Tue, 21 May 2013 03:27:56 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: roll issue tracker <trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software
To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com
X-Trac-Project: roll
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 01:27:56 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/127#comment:2
Message-ID: <082.71869706c653c9e98686b58fa2d16fbf@trac.tools.ietf.org>
References: <067.187eacba7e92c2802d1ec6182a5ccc87@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 127
In-Reply-To: <067.187eacba7e92c2802d1ec6182a5ccc87@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: johui@cisco.com, mariainesrobles@gmail.com, roll@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+roll@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Cc: roll@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Roll] [roll] #127: Editorial Comments for draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Reply-To: 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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 21 May 2013 01:27:59 -0000

#127: Editorial Comments for draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-04


Comment (by mariainesrobles@gmail.com):

 From Kerry Lynn

 Lastly, to improve the clarity of section 11.2, the first bullet should
 read:

    o  This document defines a "consistent" transmission as receiving an
       MPL Control Message that results in a determination that neither the
       receiving nor transmitting node has any new MPL Data Messages to
 offer.

 (The transmission indicates nothing about state at the receiver.)
 Similarly,
 the second bullet should read:

    o  This document defines an "inconsistent" transmission as receiving
       an MPL Control Message that results in a determination that either
 the
       receiving or transmitting node has at least one new MPL Data Message
       to offer.

 It might be helpful to add a penultimate sentence to section 11.2:

       The Trickle timer is reset in response to external "events".


 Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07845.html

 From Ralph Droms

 Section 8 seems somewhat out of place, as well as redundant with the
 definition of "MPL Domain" in section 2 and the contents of section 5.1.

 In section 10.1, "the MPL Domain Address" is a little confusing.  Does a
 device belong to just a single MPL Domain, in which case it might be
 clearer to write "the MPL Domain Address to which the source interface
 belongs".  Otherwise - and I don't think I see any text in the document
 that explicitly constrains an interface to belonging to one MPL domain -
 the text should read "an MPL Domain Address to which the source interface
 belongs".

 Thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07863.html

-- 
---------------------------------------+------------------------------
 Reporter:  mariainesrobles@gmail.com  |       Owner:  johui@cisco.com
     Type:  defect                     |      Status:  new
 Priority:  minor                      |   Milestone:
Component:  trickle-mcast              |     Version:
 Severity:  In WG Last Call            |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                             |
---------------------------------------+------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/127#comment:2>
roll <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>