Hi Eric, Thanks for your comments! I have responded inline :
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 3:20 PM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-6tisch-msf-12: 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-6tisch-msf/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thank you for the work put into this document. > > Please find below some non-blocking COMMENTs and NITs. An answer will be > appreciated. > > I hope that this helps to improve the document, > > Regards, > > -éric > > == COMMENTS == > > As Alissa's comment, please use RFC 8174 boiler plate. > > -- Section 3 -- > Suggest to remove "The AutoRxCell MUST always remain scheduled after > synchronized. * 6P CLEAR MUST NOT erase any autonomous cells." from the > bulleted list and create a new paragraph for those 2 lines. > *RESPONSE*: Will update the text accordingly. > > -- Section 4 -- > The whole section seems to assume that the events will work as expected. > But, > what if this is not the case? E.g., the JP does not send any reply ? > *RESPONSE*: if JP does not send any reply, the node will retransmit another Join request after a timeout. However, the whole behavior is actually defined in CoJP. We repeat them here is to make reader easy to understand the story line of a node once bootup. > > -- Section 5.3 -- > "we necessarily have NumTxAck <= NumTx" is only true is all nodes behave... > > "MUST be divided by 2", the example is about 127 divided by 2 giving the > unexpected value (to me at least) of 64... The text should clarify how > rounding > is handled as it is not a plain right shift by 1. > > Step 2, is it also applicable to any value of MAX_NUMTX ? Including very > small > or very large ones ? > *RESPONSE*: thanks for the comments. We will state that the MAX_NUMTX needs to be power of 2 to resolve the issue. Also the recommended value of MAX_NUMTX is added in the draft. > > == NITS == > > -- section 5.2 -- > To be checked by a native speaker but s/can have a node switch parent/can > have > a node switching parent/ would make the text easier to parse. > > -- Section 14 -- > Please order the rows of Figure 2. > > *RESPONSE*: it will be ordered as the time it appears in the text in next version. > > > _______________________________________________ > 6tisch mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch > -- —————————————————————————————————————— Dr. Tengfei, Chang Postdoctoral Research Engineer, Inria www.tchang.org/ ——————————————————————————————————————
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
