Hi Robert, 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 Please find below our inline responses: > Robert Wilton 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: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Hi, > > Thank you for this document. It is somewhat outside my area of expertise, > but > I do not see any network management related issues. > > One minor comment: > > 3.2. Usage scenarios > > There are different deployment and usage scenarios for CNNs. Some > CNNs follow the star topology, whereby one or several hosts are > linked to a central device that acts as a router connecting the CNN > to the Internet. CNNs may also follow the multihop topology > [RFC6606]. > > Perhaps: "Alternatively, CNNs may also follow ... ", otherwise it feels > like > this paragraph stops quite abruptly, whereas from the first couple of > sentences > I was expecting it to say a bit more about the different deployment > scenarios. We applied your suggested change. Thanks, Carles (on behalf of the authors) > Regards, > Rob > > > > _______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
