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

From: "Suresh Krishnan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 11:42:38 -0700

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?

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..."