Hi Murray, 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: > Murray Kucherawy 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: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Piling on: You don't appear to need Section 2. Agreed. We removed Section 2. > Is Section 8 meant to be removed before publication, a la RFC 7942? We would like to keep former Section 8 (now, Section 7), entitled "Annex. TCP implementations for constrained devices". Just for clarity, the next section ("Changes compared to previous versions") is intended to be removed be removed before publication. Thanks, Carles (on behalf of all authors) _______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
