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

From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 04:31:13 -0800

Mirja Kühlewind 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

One question: How is the proxy priority supposed to be calculated/set? Is there
a default value?

Is also support points raised in Roman's discuss points. More clarification is
needed.

Editorial comment:
I would recommend to repeat the abstract in the intro as, as stated in the RFC
style guide RFC7322 section 4.3, "[...] an Abstract is not a substitute for an
Introduction; the RFC should be self-contained as if there were no Abstract."

Nit: sec 1.3:
s/Although However/Although/ or s/Although However/However/ ?
s/a unicast RS may be transmitted in response[RFC6775] reduces the amount
of.../a unicast RS that may be transmitted in response [RFC6775] reduces the
amount of.../ ? (Also note missing space before [)

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 20:08:47 +0100

Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > One question: How is the proxy priority supposed to be calculated/set?
    > Is there a default value?

draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority describes a way to calculate it when RPL
is used.   The calculation needs to take into account available network
resources along the paths down to the Join Proxy, and also network-wide
"enthuasiam" for new nodes.
I will add a reference: these two documents started as a single document, but
seem to have never gained appropriate cross-links.

    > Editorial comment: I would recommend to repeat the abstract in the
    > intro as, as stated in the RFC style guide RFC7322 section 4.3, "[...]
    > an Abstract is not a substitute for an Introduction; the RFC should be
    > self-contained as if there were no Abstract."

yes, that's good, I'll move and merge some text.

    > Nit: sec 1.3: s/Although However/Although/ or s/Although
    > However/However/ ?  s/a unicast RS may be transmitted in
    > response[RFC6775] reduces the amount of.../a unicast RS that may be
    > transmitted in response [RFC6775] reduces the amount of.../ ? (Also
    > note missing space before [)

already edited, i hope you it will make more sense.

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

---

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 13:46:07 +0100

Thanks!

> On 20. Feb 2020, at 20:08, Michael Richardson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>