Hi Ketan and Ines,
On 30/09/2025 06:32, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
Thanks Ines for those very good suggestions and comments. Makes sense to me.
Konrad, what is your view?
All suggestions by Ines make perfect sense. I approve. Thank you Ines!
Best regards,
--
- Konrad Iwanicki.
On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 12:33 AM Ines Robles
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
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] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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
<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]
<mailto:[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]
