Subject: [6tisch] Iotdir early review of draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-05

From: Carles Gomez via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 09:01:27 -0700

Reviewer: Carles Gomez
Review result: Ready with Issues

Thanks to the authors for writing this document.

I did not identify technical problems. (There are comments below that do have a
technical side, but the issues might just be editorial.)

There is a number of suggestions provided below, mostly editorial and about
presentation.

Title
- "IEEE802.15.4" --> "IEEE 802.15.4"
- "Informational Element" --> "Information Element"
- "6tisch" --> "6TiSCH"

Abstract: I'd suggest adding a comma after "In TSCH mode of IEEE STD 802.15.4".

Section 1.
- "As further details" --> "As further detailed"
- Introduce the acronym "EB" the first time that "Enhanced Beacon" appears.
(Then use "EB" thereafter in the document.)

Subsection 1.2.
- After "synchronization of ASN and Join Metric," perhaps you may insert
"carrying" and reorganize a bit the rest of the sentence. - "existance" -->
"existence" - "There are a limited number...". --> "There is a limited
number..." - "... by each router". Perhaps, to give more context, "by each
router in the network".

Subsection 1.3.
- Title: please add ":" after "synchronization".
- Title: capitalize "solicitations" and "advertisements"
- On the first use of RS, RA, NS and NA, please use the expanded form and
introduce the acronym, and use the acronym thereafter. - "consuming a broadcast
aloha slot with unencrypted traffic" appears to be one of the reasons
mentioned, but it is a bit hidden between parenthesis. You may want to
reorganize the sentence to emphasize that this is actually the crucial point. -
Second bullet in the list: did you mean "RA" instead of "Router Soliciation" -
Third bullet in the list: "If it must listen for a RS as well..." Did you mean
"listen for an RA" ?

- It might be nice to close Section 1 by adding something along the lines of
"This document defines...". However, this would not be specific to subsection
1.3. Therefore, some reorganization of Section 1 might improve the document.

Section 2.
- Even if there is a single figure in the whole document, it might be good to
add a figure number and a caption the format for the new IE subtype. - After
the figure, is there a particular reason why the fields of the format are
presented in a different order from the one in the format? - Please add a ":"
after the name of each field and its definition/description. - "this field
indicates the willingness to act as join proxy". Perhaps "the willingness of
the sender to act..."? - "Lower value indicates willing to act as a Join
Proxy..." Perhaps "Lower value indicates greater willingness to act as..." -
"Values range 0 (most willing)..." --> "Values range 0x00 (most willing)..." -
In the figure, one field is called "Join Proxy lower-64". In the text, it has a
different name... - "if the Proxy Address P-flag is set, then the lower 64-bits
of the Join Proxy’s Link Layer address..." Did you mean "link-local" instead of
"Link Layer? - "the layer-2 address of any IPv6 traffic to the originator". Did
you mean "the destination layer-2 address..." ? - "if the P bit is set, then 64
bits (8 bytes) of address are present." I had trouble understanding this
sentence. Please consider rewriting it. - "this is an variable length field"
--> "this is a variable length field".

Section 5.
- "Registry IETF IE Sub-type ID." Please cite RFC 8137 here as well.

---

From: "Chakrabarti, Samita" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 12:31:18 -0400

Thank you Carles very much for the review of
draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon
draft in such a short notice!
Appreciated.

Best regards,
-Samita

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 12:01 PM Carles Gomez via Datatracker <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> IoT-DIR mailing list
> [email-masked]
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_iot-2Ddir&d=DwIGaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=pWMzx7FsqijEJPyfMBfn-HJss-wVVTf0K5y-cxCTXL8&m=DxVylV19UVeLLv0a9RlUDLqLmQOvcItv8R3rGOq_cW8&s=86T5KHrf_W8JMowiPPDEKNhVn0Q7ikW774AUV0szKg4&e=
>

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 03:07:15 +0000

Thanks a lot Carles for your careful review and your text change proposals. Authors, any thoughts on these changes?

Regards
Suresh

> On Oct 24, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Carles Gomez via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Carles Gomez