Subject: [Roll] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-25: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 11:52:36 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-25: 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-useofrplinfo/

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

= Section 1 =

"An interim meeting went through the 24 cases defined here to discover
   if there were any shortcuts, and this document is the result of that
   discussion."

These details seem unnecessary to include in an archival document.

= Section 3.1 =

"[RFCXXXX] represents this document."

This is not necessary to include.

= Section 9 =

"Related to the deployment of RPL, there are no known multivendor
   deployments outside of the research groups!  All known deployments of
   RPL are in market verticals, with a single vendor providing all
   components.  Research groups typically are using Contiki, RiotOS, or
   OpenWSN, and these are easily adapted to 0x23 functionality."

It seems like this text should be dropped or marked for removal once the RFC is
published, since it will likely become out-of-date soon enough.