Re: [Roll] [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-09

[satish anamalamudi <[e-mail]>]

Dear all,

In my opinion, it is good to include AODV-RPL acronym within the title of
the draft.

Regards,
Satish

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 12:03 AM S.V.R.Anand <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I prefer to retain AODV-RPL in the title. AODV-RPL acronym has already
> been referred by research community in their publications, and roll
> community uses this acronym to refer to this draft. Also, I feel AODV
> and RPL acronyms are familiar to the wireless and low power and lossy
> networks world.
>
> How about "AODV-RPL Extensions for Asymmetric Links in Low Power
> Networks", or "AODV-RPL Support for Asymmetric Links in LLNs" ?
>
> Regards
> Anand
>
>
> On 21-03-28 10:39:53, Charlie Perkins wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello Tero,
> >
> > Thanks for your comments, useful as always.  Please see a bit of
> > follow-up below.
> >
> >
> > On 3/22/2021 9:41 AM, Tero Kivinen via Datatracker wrote:
> > >The title of the draft has some acronyms which are not expanded (AODV,
> P2P) and
> > >if you expand them the title comes way too long. I would propose a
> usable
> > >title, which might not need to use all possible acronyms, but would
> better
> > >explain what this document is trying to do.
> >
> > How about "Supporting Asymmetric Links in Low Power Networks"? Replacing
> > "LLNs" by "Low Power Networks" is probably O.K. because lossy is almost
> > implicit given low power (or, often, reality).
> >
> >
> > >
> > >Nits:
> > >
> > >In section 1 the text "RPL [RFC6550] (Routing Protocol for Low-Power
> and Lossy
> > >Networks)" defines acronyms differently than what is used everywhere
> else. In
> > >all other cases the document uses format where the acronym is in
> parenthesis
> > >after the full text, i.e. "Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy
> Networks
> > >(RPL) [RFC6550]" format. I would propose using the same format also for
> here.
> > Done.
> >
> > >
> > >In section 1 there is acronym DAG which is not expanded, expand it on
> first
> > >use.
> > I think that sentence reads better just omitting DAG.
> >
> >
> > >  Also there are unexpanded acronyms DAO, P2MP, which are not used
> anywhere
> > >else, perhaps just expand them here. In same paragraph there is also
> acronym
> > >MOP which is not expanded here on its first use, but it is expanded
> later.
> > >Expand it here on its first use.
> >
> > Done, except that I thought it would be better to exhibit the acronym
> > DAO since it is well known to readers familiar with RPL.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >What is the difference between different reserve bits X and r in
> sections
> > >4.1/4.2 and 4.3?
> > I made them all to be reserved bits 'X'.
> >
> > >
> > >Period missing from the end of sentence of the Option Length
> description in
> > >Section 4.3.
> > Done.
> >
> > >
> > >In the IANA considerations section I propose add a note to RFC editor
> saying
> > >that the sentences saying " The parenthesized numbers are only
> suggestions."
> > >needs to be removed prior publication.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Done!
> >
> > Naturally Yours,
> > Charlie P.
> >
>
-- 











*With Regards,*

*Dr. Satish Anamalamudi, PhD.,*