Re: [Roll] Gen-ART LC review for draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-04

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Wed, 08 July 2015 22:07 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 259B81A88AB; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 15:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.256
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.256 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FF_IHOPE_YOU_SINK=2.166, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 vZ85g1_bRs4n; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 15:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 653391A889D; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 15:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BADB52D013; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 01:07:55 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2-9rZhZIMIQb; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 01:07:54 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A30322D00D; Thu, 9 Jul 2015 01:07:54 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9A953FA5-AAE3-4805-B2AA-F52D3F0DF111"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <559503CC.7030409@toshiba.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 00:07:53 +0200
Message-Id: <C8E15B0B-A6CC-4839-8371-25C79075D256@piuha.net>
References: <01ea01d0af9c$de6319e0$9b294da0$@akayla.com> <559503CC.7030409@toshiba.co.jp>
To: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/is2sAnmYxjaOlQFx_iBfydE0h6M>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Roll] Gen-ART LC review for draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-04
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 22:07:58 -0000

Yusuke, Peter, thanks for detailed review and changes.

Jari

On 02 Jul 2015, at 11:26, Yusuke DOI <yusuke.doi@toshiba.co.jp> wrote:

> Dear Peter,
> 
> Thank you for review. I submitted -06 (-05 contains some nits) as a revised version.
> 
> On 2015-06-26 08:15, Peter Yee wrote:
>> Some of the parameters are described with their bit lengths, others are not.
>> Lengths are listed haphazardly.  Be consistent in either including them or
>> not.  Timer lengths are listed as n-bit integers, but this may be confusing
>> given that the document says "Short floating point format is used to
>> describe the wide range of timer values".  So, are the timer values floating
>> point or integer?  Is the combined implication supposed to be that the
>> numbers are formatted as floating point (for greater range), but only take
>> on integer values?  Given that the values in this document are all given in
>> reference to division by the value of TUNIT, it's possible that values might
>> not be integers.  If that happens and only integers are desired, is rounding
>> or truncation preferred?  Also note that Appendix A indicates that "short
>> unsigned floating point" was dropped.  It's not completely clear if that
>> means that "short [signed?] floating point" was adopted in its stead or
>> whether actual short integers were preferred.
> 
> Short floating point is dropped but some texts have not removed (my mistake). Thank you for pointing out. All values should be in integer.
> 
> Thank you again for your efforts on review (and sorry for lot of nits...)
> 
> Yusuke
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> Roll@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll