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

From: "Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 04:14:58 +0000

Hi Suresh,

Thanks the comments, please see responses/comments below:

On 5/3/16, 11:42 AM, "Suresh Krishnan" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>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?
[NCW] I missed this one as we previously had discussions as to which should
be Normative vs. Informative.  Given that this is required reading, I
will move it back to normative.

>
>Section 1.3: Please expand RPL before first use and add a reference to
>RFC6550
[NCW] I¹d presumed having the title be first use would suffice.  But will
add here with reference.

>
>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.
[NCW] A summary was felt needed to relax enforcement of readers read the
full RFC.  But can remove the reference as suggested.

>
>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,"
[NCW+DP] We are missing the trigger, so we can update the sentence to read:
³The traffic generated by the head-end server and
   destined to metering devices is dominated by periodic meter read
requests,
   while traffic generated by the metering devices is typically
   uniformly spread over some periodic read time-window.²

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

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 13:09:03 +0000

Thanks Nancy. Your proposed changes look good to me.

Regards
Suresh