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/>
- [Roll] [roll] #127: Editorial Comments for draft-… roll issue tracker
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #127: Editorial Comments for dr… roll issue tracker
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #127: Editorial Comments for dr… roll issue tracker
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #127: Editorial Comments for dr… roll issue tracker
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #127: Editorial Comments for dr… roll issue tracker
- Re: [Roll] [roll] #127: Editorial Comments for dr… roll issue tracker