Re: [secdir] [Last-Call] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-09

[satish anamalamudi <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I am supporting with charlie new title.

Regards,
Satish

On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 11:10 PM Charlie Perkins <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello Tero,
>
> Thanks for your comments, useful as always.  Please see a bit of
> follow-up below.
>
>
> On 3/22/2021 9:41 AM, Tero Kivinen via Datatracker wrote:
> > The title of the draft has some acronyms which are not expanded (AODV,
> P2P) and
> > if you expand them the title comes way too long. I would propose a usable
> > title, which might not need to use all possible acronyms, but would
> better
> > explain what this document is trying to do.
>
> How about "Supporting Asymmetric Links in Low Power Networks"? Replacing
> "LLNs" by "Low Power Networks" is probably O.K. because lossy is almost
> implicit given low power (or, often, reality).
>
>
> >
> > Nits:
> >
> > In section 1 the text "RPL [RFC6550] (Routing Protocol for Low-Power and
> Lossy
> > Networks)" defines acronyms differently than what is used everywhere
> else. In
> > all other cases the document uses format where the acronym is in
> parenthesis
> > after the full text, i.e. "Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy
> Networks
> > (RPL) [RFC6550]" format. I would propose using the same format also for
> here.
> Done.
>
> >
> > In section 1 there is acronym DAG which is not expanded, expand it on
> first
> > use.
> I think that sentence reads better just omitting DAG.
>
>
> >   Also there are unexpanded acronyms DAO, P2MP, which are not used
> anywhere
> > else, perhaps just expand them here. In same paragraph there is also
> acronym
> > MOP which is not expanded here on its first use, but it is expanded
> later.
> > Expand it here on its first use.
>
> Done, except that I thought it would be better to exhibit the acronym
> DAO since it is well known to readers familiar with RPL.
>
>
> >
> > What is the difference between different reserve bits X and r in sections
> > 4.1/4.2 and 4.3?
> I made them all to be reserved bits 'X'.
>
> >
> > Period missing from the end of sentence of the Option Length description
> in
> > Section 4.3.
> Done.
>
> >
> > In the IANA considerations section I propose add a note to RFC editor
> saying
> > that the sentences saying " The parenthesized numbers are only
> suggestions."
> > needs to be removed prior publication.
> >
> >
>
> Done!
>
> Naturally Yours,
> Charlie P.
>
> --











*With Regards,*

*Dr. Satish Anamalamudi, PhD.,*