Subject: [6tisch] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-13: (with COMMENT)

From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 14:12:53 -0800

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-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-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon/

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

— Section 1.2 —

   The EB is used by nodes already part of a TSCH network to annouce its
   existence.

I can’t figure out the antecedent to “its”.  Can you rephrase this sentence to
make it clearer?

   There is a limited number of timeslots designated as a broadcast slot
   by each router in the network.

While “a limited number” looks as if it should be singular, it is generally
considered plural in usage and needs “are”, not “is” (and the plural “broadcast
slots”).  This is a tricky one...

You should also get rid of the “/s” later in the paragraph.

— Section 1.3 —

   if a pledge node does not hear an
   RA, and decides to send a RS

You should be consistent in use of “a” or “an”, and I think “an” works better.

In the numbered list, each item is a complete sentence and should start with a
capital letter.  You also should fix the sentence capitalization throughout
Section 2.

   This document defines a new IETF IE subtype

Please expand “IE” here.

— Section 3 —

   The Enhanced Beagon

Typo...

   validate the beacon, providing them with a trusted

The end of that sentence is missing.

 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

The following are comments from Murray Kucherawy, incoming ART AD.  Murray is
getting an early start on doing reviews, and I’m including his comments into my
ballots during the overlap period before he’s officially an Area Director.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mostly minor things here since this is (currently) well outside my domain.

Every reference to "Enhanced Beacon" in this document parses to me as "Enhanced
Bacon".

The nits from directorate reports seem to provide good editorial suggestions,
though somehow none of them noticed that the second paragraph of Section 1.3
starts "Although However".  It looks kind of like the "although" should
actually come after the second comma.

I don't know what to make sure of "(see {?RFC7554})".  Are they not sure about
these references?  Or is this a new format thing?

RFC 8137's IANA section seems especially spartan, but there's nothing to be
done about that here.  (I discovered this by following a reference.)

In Section 2, "Values range" should be "Values range from".

Same section: "The exact process is a subject of significant research work." 
Are we documenting a process we don't understand?  Are any references to said
research appropriate here?

The sentence "This value MUST be ignored by pledges..." is a comma splice.

Under "pan priority", should "Acycling" be "Acyclic"?

"nodes'" should be "node's", I think.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:03:14 +0100

> — Section 1.2 —

I believe that I've dealt with all of Barry's original comments in -13.

    > The following are comments from Murray Kucherawy, incoming ART AD.
    > Murray is getting an early start on doing reviews, and I’m including
    > his comments into my ballots during the overlap period before he’s
    > officially an Area Director.

    > Every reference to "Enhanced Beacon" in this document parses to me as
    > "Enhanced Bacon".

I can't help if Murray is pining for Bacon.

    > The nits from directorate reports seem to provide good editorial
    > suggestions, though somehow none of them noticed that the second
    > paragraph of Section 1.3 starts "Although However".  It looks kind of
    > like the "although" should actually come after the second comma.

I think that this paragraph already got rewritten.

    > I don't know what to make sure of "(see {?RFC7554})".  Are they not
    > sure about these references?  Or is this a new format thing?

This is a markdown failure, it should be {{?RFC7554}}, which markdown expands
to a proper xref.  Fixed.

    > RFC 8137's IANA section seems especially spartan, but there's nothing
    > to be done about that here.  (I discovered this by following a
    > reference.)

This document is the second user of it.

    > In Section 2, "Values range" should be "Values range from".

fixed.

    > Same section: "The exact process is a subject of significant research
    > work."  Are we documenting a process we don't understand?  Are any
    > references to said research appropriate here?

There are aspects of this, and aspects that are certain.
How to tune/calculate the values is the subject of research.
How to intepret them is clear.

    > The sentence "This value MUST be ignored by pledges..." is a comma

Fixed.

    > Under "pan priority", should "Acycling" be "Acyclic"?

Thanks.

    > "nodes'" should be "node's", I think.

agreed. fixed.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 07:13:04 -0800

> I can't help if Murray is pining for Bacon.

I'll start a separate document.

> How to intepret them is clear.

Could some variation of those three sentences appear in the document as
clarifying text?

-MSK

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 15:26:23 -0500

>> > work."  Are we documenting a process we don't understand?  Are any >
    >> There are aspects of this, and aspects that are certain.  How to
    >> tune/calculate the values is the subject of research.  How to intepret
    >> them is clear.
    >>

    > Could some variation of those three sentences appear in the document as

I'm going to let this conversation happen in the thread that is here:
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/1x8vWueTsj1l8g5UNzhEkXJSn_U