Subject: [Lwip] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-11: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 00:32:30 -0700

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-11: 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-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks/

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

Piling on: You don't appear to need Section 2.

Is Section 8 meant to be removed before publication, a la RFC 7942?

---

From: "Carles Gomez Montenegro" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 09:11:31 +0100

Hi Murray,

Thank you very much for your review!

We just submitted revision -12, which aims at addressing the comments
received from the IESG and related reviewers:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-12

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks/

Agreed. We removed Section 2.

> Is Section 8 meant to be removed before publication, a la RFC 7942?

We would like to keep former Section 8 (now, Section 7), entitled "Annex.
TCP implementations for constrained devices".

Just for clarity, the next section ("Changes compared to previous
versions") is intended to be removed be removed before publication.

Thanks,

Carles (on behalf of all authors)