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

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

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" <[e-mail]>
> 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.
>
>>
>>
>
>