Thanks Ines for those very good suggestions and comments. Makes sense to me.
Konrad, what is your view? Thanks, Ketan On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 12:33 AM Ines Robles <[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]> > 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]
