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

Lars Eggert via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 14 April 2021 15:46 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 125E03A1447; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 08:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Lars Eggert 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: 7.27.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-ID: <161841517905.8620.14903415282133221941@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 08:46:19 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/_GeMFCUGtDT3bIDU6AvsdNEdlfA>
Subject: [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
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, 14 Apr 2021 15:46:25 -0000

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
+                ^