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

Hi,

Thanks for the feedback, please see in-line.

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
>