Dear all, Thank you for the work on this.
Please find my comments below regarding the new normative words: A- addition of “MUST” in last sentence of third bullet in Section 5.1 -> "...it MUST add itself to NegativeCFRC. That is, it MUST replace its NegativeCFRC,..." The use of MUST here looks correct. As a suggestion, to improve clarity, the two sentences could be merged so that the second does not appear as an independent requirement but as a clarification of the first. For example: "...the node MUST add itself to NegativeCFRC, by replacing its NegativeCFRC, denoted oldnc, with newnc = merge(oldnc, selfc), where selfc...." What do you think? B- addition of “MAY” in last sentence in Section 5.5 -> "...For example, it MAY reply with a unicast..." The phrase “For example” signals that the sentence is illustrative, but the use of MAY gives it normative weight. This could make the intent less clear to readers, since examples are usually informative while MAY is normative. What about? “For example, it might reply with a unicast …” C- addition of “MUST” in second paragraph in Section 6.3 -> "This information MUST be accompanied by the recommended monitoring parameters provided by RPL itself [RFC6550], notably the DODAG Version number and the Rank." Two points: -The phrase “recommended monitoring parameters” is vague, and the word “recommended” contradicts the normative MUST. -The word “notably” leaves unclear whether other RPL parameters are also mandatory or only optional. what about something like? "This information MUST be accompanied by the monitoring parameters defined by RPL [RFC6550], including at least the DODAG Version Number and the Rank." Thank you and Best Regards, Ines. On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 4:12 PM Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Rebecca, > > It seems good to me. However, I would like either Ines or Aris (ROLL WG > chairs) to also confirm this is ok to go without a check with the WG. > > Thanks, > Ketan > > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 7:29 AM Rebecca VanRheenen < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Ketan, > > > > As AD, please review and approve the changes listed below. These are best > > viewed in the following diff file: > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9866-alt-diff.html. > > > > - addition of “MUST” in last sentence of third bullet in Section 5.1 > > - addition of “MAY” in last sentence in Section 5.5 > > - addition of “MUST” in second paragraph in Section 6.3 > > > > Thank you, > > > > Rebecca VanRheenen > > RFC Production Center > > > > > > > > > On Sep 25, 2025, at 6:54 PM, Rebecca VanRheenen < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Konrad, > > > > > > Thank you for responding to our questions! We updated the document > > accordingly. Note that we did not make any changes per question #6 as > there > > should not be any confusion for readers and the current is consistent > with > > RFC 6550 (thanks for pointing that out!). > > > > > > In a separate email, we will ask the AD to approve the changes that > > involve 2119 keywords (we consider those changes to be “above > editorial”). > > > > > > Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do > not > > make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any > > further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
