Subject: [6tisch] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-6tisch-msf-12: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 07:20:28 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6tisch-msf-12: 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-msf/

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

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENTs and NITs. An answer will be
appreciated.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

As Alissa's comment, please use RFC 8174 boiler plate.

-- Section 3 --
Suggest to remove "The AutoRxCell MUST always remain scheduled after
synchronized. *  6P CLEAR MUST NOT erase any autonomous cells." from the
bulleted list and create a new paragraph for those 2 lines.

-- Section 4 --
The whole section seems to assume that the events will work as expected. But,
what if this is not the case? E.g., the JP does not send any reply ?

-- Section 5.3 --
"we necessarily have NumTxAck <= NumTx" is only true is all nodes behave...

"MUST be divided by 2", the example is about 127 divided by 2 giving the
unexpected value (to me at least) of 64... The text should clarify how rounding
is handled as it is not a plain right shift by 1.

Step 2, is it also applicable to any value of MAX_NUMTX ? Including very small
or very large ones ?

== NITS ==

-- section 5.2 --
To be checked by a native speaker but s/can have a node switch parent/can have
a node switching parent/ would make the text easier to parse.

-- Section 14 --
Please order the rows of Figure 2.

---

From: Tengfei Chang <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 13:16:12 +0100

Hi Eric,

Thanks for your comments!
I have responded inline :

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6tisch-msf/

*RESPONSE*: Will update the text accordingly.

> what if this is not the case? E.g., the JP does not send any reply ?

*RESPONSE*: if JP does not send any reply, the node will retransmit another
Join request after a timeout.
However, the whole behavior is actually defined in CoJP. We repeat them
here is to make reader easy to understand the story line of a node once
bootup.

> Step 2, is it also applicable to any value of MAX_NUMTX ? Including very

*RESPONSE*:  thanks for the comments. We will state that the MAX_NUMTX
needs to be power of 2 to resolve the issue.
Also the recommended value of MAX_NUMTX is added in the draft.

> *RESPONSE*: it will be ordered as the time it appears in the text in
next version.

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6tisch mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
>

-- 
——————————————————————————————————————

Dr. Tengfei, Chang
Postdoctoral Research Engineer, Inria

www.tchang.org/
——————————————————————————————————————