Subject: [Roll] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-roll-04-06: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 19:06:00 -0800

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-roll-04-06: 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.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-roll/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This charter looks fine to me, modulo a few nits I wondered about.

Perhaps "self routing configuration" might be clearer as "routing
self-configuration"? 

I was expecting "It will also need to consider the transport
characteristic the routing protocol messages will experience" to refer to
characteristics, plural. But I wonder if the sentence would be clearer as
"The workng group will consider the transport characteristics routing
protocol 
messages will experience". 

I'm sure "Additional protocol elements to reduce packet size" is correct,
but it seems counter-intuitive. Is there a better way to say what you
mean?

Is "the draft about when to use RFC6553, RFC6554, and IPv6-in-IPv6
encapsulation Draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo" an Applicability Statement,
or did this mean something else? But I see that Mirja had a question
about the use of draft names that haven't been adopted. Perhaps it's
worth a pass substituting clearer descriptions for draft names?

---

From: Ines Robles <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 14:40:28 +0900

Hi,

Thanks for the feedback, please see in-line.

Ok, thanks,

> messages will experience".

we could add "that", would it be ok?: ""The working group will consider the
transport characteristics  that the routing protocol messages will
experience"."

> but it seems counter-intuitive. Is there a better way to say what you

What about this one: "Additional protocol mechanisms to reduce packet size"

> or did this mean something else?

Yes, it is a guide with the uses cases that describe the uses of "RPL
option" (RPI), "RPL Source Route Header" (RH3), and an IPv6 Extension
Header.

> But I see that Mirja had a question

Ok, we will do that.

Thanks,

Ines

>
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 21:31:30 -0600

Hi, Inez,

On Dec 14, 2016 1:40 PM, "Ines Robles" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

Hi,

All of your responses look fine to me - and thank you.

Spencer

Ok, thanks,

Ok, we will do that.

Thanks,

Ines

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 13:57:06 +0000

Spencer:

Hi!

I just updated the charter in the datatracker; the new version is -04-08.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On 12/14/16, 10:31 PM, "Spencer Dawkins at IETF" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote: