Re: [Roll] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-13: (with COMMENT)

Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> Thu, 09 June 2016 13:09 UTC

Return-Path: <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.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 6110A12D5FF; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 06:09:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 4Fmw_NP7w-3i; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 06:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usplmg21.ericsson.net (usplmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43E3E12D5AF; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 06:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f796f6d000000e1e-87-57596a36a3ea
Received: from EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.84]) by usplmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 26.0D.03614.63A69575; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 15:08:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUSAAMB107.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.124]) by EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0294.000; Thu, 9 Jun 2016 09:09:03 -0400
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
To: "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <ncamwing@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-13: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRpWuWGJmWZVW+REmAcqhHk6zJYA==
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 13:09:03 +0000
Message-ID: <E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF643CEAFBD@eusaamb107.ericsson.se>
References: <20160503184237.8197.30865.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D37E16FB.174964%ncamwing@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.11]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFuphkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLonRNc8KzLc4MU6bou/P7cyWlzdOInR YsaficwWPYf62S0mTZnMZPGx5RqrRdNlAQd2jym/N7J6LFnyk8mjZc4e5gDmKC6blNSczLLU In27BK6MQ10TWQq2SFb0rvzC2MD4XaSLkZNDQsBEYtLBFSwQtpjEhXvr2boYuTiEBI4yStzd +AnKWcYo8fjzdmaQKjagjg07PzOB2CICQRJXF4B0c3EwC0xlklh65QAjSEJYIFXi7NEFjBBF aRKzzx0EKuIAsvUkvs/IBDFZBFQklp8oA6ngFfCV6Fg6mw3EFhJIlzh7YAfYeEagg76fWgNm MwuIS9x6Mp8J4lABiSV7zjND2KISLx//Y4WwlSQ+/p7PDlGvJ3Fj6hQ2CFtbYtnC18wQuwQl Ts58wjKBUXQWkrGzkLTMQtIyC0nLAkaWVYwcpcUFObnpRoabGIFxdEyCzXEH495ez0OMAhyM Sjy8CVMjwoVYE8uKK3MPMUpwMCuJ8HalRYYL8aYkVlalFuXHF5XmpBYfYpTmYFES59V/qRgO 9HBiSWp2ampBahFMlomDU6qBMfSCu/LSZW1PguYGb30nJlg696flY3m1+kMnQiSvLvioXNqZ JvB9Hk/TM/bvovtDlsq/T/69IG9nnMlNTcWKetM7JXdubHjouoYnwSY6U0M90M1jz5FuqZtv ZNtPcOv2CN2NiKhUljgtdjKSQXSXeO+yP9r7HdifTP98/PlGt4ptMWwyivqTlFiKMxINtZiL ihMBSgM/fJ8CAAA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/nrsNkbUJcdwyc-Mdv7_OCxOWNN4>
Cc: "roll-chairs@ietf.org" <roll-chairs@ietf.org>, "roll@ietf.org" <roll@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami@ietf.org>, "mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca" <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-13: (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, 09 Jun 2016 13:09:07 -0000

Thanks Nancy. Your proposed changes look good to me.

Regards
Suresh

On 06/09/2016 12:15 AM, Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing) wrote:
> Hi Suresh,
>
> Thanks the comments, please see responses/comments below:
>
> On 5/3/16, 11:42 AM, "Suresh Krishnan" <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>;
> wrote:
>
>> Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-13: 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-applicability-ami/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Section 1.2: Required reading - Why is the item [surveySG] in required
>> reading not part of the normative references?
> [NCW] I missed this one as we previously had discussions as to which should
> be Normative vs. Informative.  Given that this is required reading, I
> will move it back to normative.
>
>
>>
>> Section 1.3: Please expand RPL before first use and add a reference to
>> RFC6550
> [NCW] I¹d presumed having the title be first use would suffice.  But will
> add here with reference.
>
>
>>
>> Section 2: Is this section really required? Seems like a summarization of
>> the RPL RFC. At least consider removing the part that starts with  "RPL
>> was designed to meet the following application requirements:" and
>> mentions a list of requirement RFCs. This list does not seem relevant
>> here and is also covered in the RPL spec itself.
> [NCW] A summary was felt needed to relax enforcement of readers read the
> full RFC.  But can remove the reference as suggested.
>
>
>>
>> Section 4.1: This does not sound right. Isn't the periodic meter read
>> traffic going the other direction? " The traffic generated by the
>> head-end server and destined to metering devices is dominated by periodic
>> meter reads,"
> [NCW+DP] We are missing the trigger, so we can update the sentence to read:
> ³The traffic generated by the head-end server and
>     destined to metering devices is dominated by periodic meter read
> requests,
>     while traffic generated by the metering devices is typically
>     uniformly spread over some periodic read time-window.²
>
>
>>
>> Section 7.4.1: Please add a reference the trickle algorithm at first use.
>> e.g. "Trickle [RFC6206] was designed to be..."
> [NCW] Will do.
>
>>
>>
>
>