I think the draft is well written and contains valuable information. It
should be submitted to the IESG after the following editorial changes
are made:
Nits
P1, L24 r/characterisitcis/characteristics
P1, L24 r/dimention/dimension
P4, L24 "...details of the each..." - remove "each"
P4, L35 r/arbitary/arbitrary
P9, L30 r/boold/blood
P10, L30 "In case that..." - replace with "In the case that..."
P10, L39 "In Mesh Under, more than one LMs are selected for multi-hop
transmission and the nodes MAY also play role in transmission
multi-point traffic (multicast) by unicast method, not only role in data
collection." Sentence is unclear
P11, L7 "The data volume is usually not so big in this case, but data is
sensitive for delay." replace with "The volume of data volume is usually
not large in this case, but is sensitive to delay."
P11, L23 "In case..." replace with "In the case..."
P11, L25 r/typle/type
P12, L25 "such as fire alarm" add "such as a fire alarm"
P12, L25 "...MUST be handled in very critical manner." replace with
"...MUST be handled in a very critical manner. "
P12, L38 "...do not move..." replace with "...are immobile..."
P13, L50 r/acheived/achieved
P15, L31 remove "...of the Grid network..."
P15, L46 "...a few dozen of nodes..." remove "of"
P16, L52 "...LBR provides connectivities to the outside of LoWPAN..."
replace with "...LBR provides connectivity to the outside world..."
P17, L37 r/LoPWAN/LoWPAN
P21, L52 r/failure/fails
Regards
Paul
Paul Chilton
Low Power RF Solutions (formerly Jennic Ltd)
NXP Semiconductors NV
Furnival Street, Sheffield, S1 4QT, UK
Tel: +44 114 281 2655
Fax: +44 114 281 2951
Comp Reg No: 3191371 Registered In England
http://www.nxp.com http://www.jennic.com
____________________________________________
Carsten Bormann wrote:
LoWPANners,
as you know, the working group chairs dropped the ball on the usecases
document.
A version with fixes resulting from the WGLC issued on 2009-01-09 was
submitted on 2009-10-02. We wanted to get some quick feedback on
whether that was fixing the issues and then never actually issued the
second working-group last call. Indeed, the Internet-Draft expired
after six months... Then the terminology of the ND draft changed.
Since the usecases draft now has been resubmitted with updated
terminology:
This is a Working-Group Last-Call for:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lowpan-usecases-06
The document is intended to be submitted by this Working Group to the
IESG for publication as an Informational Document.
This is a one-week Working-Group Last-Call, ending on 2010-08-09
(Monday, August 09, 2010) at 2359 UTC.
Please review the document carefully (one last time), and send your
comments to the 6lowpan list. Please also indicate in your response
whether or not you think this document is ready to go to the IESG.
Carsten and Geoff
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
--
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
