IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-roll-04-06: (with COMMENT)

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 15 December 2016 03:31 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
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 2D312129565; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:31:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02RB2S4ck7cs; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:31:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x236.google.com (mail-yw0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1467C1294F8; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:31:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x236.google.com with SMTP id t125so6987692ywc.1; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:31:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rqHgfloY3L0DLPDIREy76eLdGTcizDzrth1T6dwTFB4=; b=HspgaB15jel+9+dfGwnMOtf1q/AW/QCRQzbQe5om7HVSEWJuZdZKqxbG3AU0LYT02J BkjrZevt9fmo57kOs4/Mvv+fKMK7RQvmAUCk1l9YmYuggWq5ycPhALMtFq/Da9Vg1BON gC9HElxIEfiZxMgk4iu8ltmQuyUJL6ixa684DRVr73de8KzHeG5ZDO+s4Hah27pd7hJN KK/OHg/Ifiuq+3c9hkKpdTun5d7AGWJbCC1tyepgtY3bliGEyO6emCVO/OP/pYGcX8E9 ++xl4SKqYjBO7N9RbgW+s80IXSE7q1CbB8LQHGQWR5EmWYp13jN9ntxWL/kERdSBuftR 09tA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rqHgfloY3L0DLPDIREy76eLdGTcizDzrth1T6dwTFB4=; b=jyqhJJJ4aC5okurYhH5rDOeXMdX+ijX+WmQ7ZX33SO9hIfdSPXhqFQkgYVBDgn+IuJ qmQuviGxp0r4rK+5b9Pjsvxes2ml5hf6z2WqhH/pnn3L7clmtSZ3c27UfLqQw04E4aoN Ex9FfQsXCqf8s19nAnlKIhb7cgGoQ02towgaNHjMQAFu+qN34TScWncFZDxyqSyzUrYY 7O2uRNmwUsKXNmrjqksEZjsRT8vDdQBJIDkUdf86ty58SYETs79Q7fw+k6yC4emr9W/Y UCU5m2wK7wa9r3MUcRN1xgEaFCLG1OF3LJ7+pFG7UStguMOEeU3HxVV2wxj2xzLOAAMd V8CA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC01jzZoLp9T165gGG7eivFh5QWKq2Y72fC51EnKm0ldX7J6hmT0IJ5evXeAG0nPkIda2Ev+7j9/7gRtg2w==
X-Received: by 10.129.125.215 with SMTP id y206mr122634ywc.234.1481772691331; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:31:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.176.5 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:31:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.37.176.5 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:31:30 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAP+sJUeu88_rVVNer7QxneigkiqPXrfTnad2YLTu1SzwMr+A2Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <148168476058.10753.14596151426652360789.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAP+sJUeu88_rVVNer7QxneigkiqPXrfTnad2YLTu1SzwMr+A2Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 21:31:30 -0600
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-fNi5yGN6nnA16cexifF=z28Js1AqG4W2KJnO1J8QSZOQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11492dfae79f220543aa1686"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/gNxbLbqeNxnGAKQjXn3Y2JOV7PI>
Cc: roll-chairs@ietf.org, Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Roll] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-roll-04-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <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: <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: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 03:31:38 -0000

Hi, Inez,

On Dec 14, 2016 1:40 PM, "Ines Robles" <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
wrote:

Hi,

Thanks for the feedback, please see in-line.


All of your responses look fine to me - and thank you.

Spencer


2016-12-14 12:06 GMT+09:00 Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>:

>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This charter looks fine to me, modulo a few nits I wondered about.
>
> Perhaps "self routing configuration" might be clearer as "routing
> self-configuration"?
>

Ok, thanks,

>
> I was expecting "It will also need to consider the transport
> characteristic the routing protocol messages will experience" to refer to
> characteristics, plural. But I wonder if the sentence would be clearer as
> "The workng group will consider the transport characteristics routing
> protocol
> messages will experience".
>

we could add "that", would it be ok?: ""The working group will consider the
transport characteristics  that the routing protocol messages will
experience"."

>
> I'm sure "Additional protocol elements to reduce packet size" is correct,
> but it seems counter-intuitive. Is there a better way to say what you
> mean?
>

What about this one: "Additional protocol mechanisms to reduce packet size"


>
> Is "the draft about when to use RFC6553, RFC6554, and IPv6-in-IPv6
> encapsulation Draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo" an Applicability Statement,
> or did this mean something else?


Yes, it is a guide with the uses cases that describe the uses of "RPL
option" (RPI), "RPL Source Route Header" (RH3), and an IPv6 Extension
Header.


> But I see that Mirja had a question
> about the use of draft names that haven't been adopted. Perhaps it's
> worth a pass substituting clearer descriptions for draft names?
>

Ok, we will do that.

Thanks,

Ines

>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email