Subject: [Roll] [roll] #177 (applicability-ami): Editorial Comments for ami draft - IESG Evaluation-

From: "roll issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 11:27:21 -0000

#177: Editorial Comments for ami draft - IESG Evaluation-

 Comments by Suresh Krishnan (Comment (2016-05-03))

 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami/ballot/

 Section 1.2: Required reading - Why is the item [surveySG] in required
 reading not part of the normative references?

 Section 1.3: Please expand RPL before first use and add a reference to
 RFC6550

 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.

 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,"

 Section 7.4.1: Please add a reference the trickle algorithm at first use.
 e.g. "Trickle [RFC6206] was designed to be..."

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |      Owner:  draft-ietf-roll-
  [email-masked]          |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                   |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major                    |  Milestone:
Component:  applicability-ami        |    Version:
 Severity:  In WG Last Call          |   Keywords:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/trac/ticket/177>
roll <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/roll/>