Thanks, Carles; I appreciate your addressing my comments. Barry
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 4:57 AM Carles Gomez Montenegro <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Barry, > > Thank you very much for your review! > > We just submitted revisions -12 and -13, which aim at addressing the > comments received from the IESG and related reviewers: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-13 > > Please find below our inline responses: > > > > Barry Leiba 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: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Thanks for a useful document. I just have a few editorial things here: > > > > — Section 1 — > > > > However, TCP has been > > criticized (often, unfairly) as a protocol for the IoT. In fact, > > some TCP features are not optimal for IoT scenarios, such as > > relatively long header size, unsuitability for multicast, and always- > > confirmed data delivery. However, … > > > > Both of these sentences have nit-level problems that make them a bit off. > > The > > first sounds like the criticism is that TCP is a protocol for IoT (rather > > than > > that it’s not suitable for that usage). The second has the examples > > misplaced, > > so it look as though they’re examples of IoT scenarios (rather than > > examples of > > TCP features). And “in fact” has the wrong feel here: it would > > normally be > > used to contradict the previous sentence, not to explain it. (And two > > “however”s in close proximity also feels awkward) I suggest this fix: > > > > NEW > > TCP has been > > criticized, often unfairly, as a protocol that’s unsuitable for the > > IoT. It is true that some TCP features, such as its relatively long > > header size, unsuitability for multicast, and always-confirmed data > > delivery, are not optimal for IoT scenarios. However, … > > Thanks for your detailed explanation, and thanks also for your proposed > new text, which definitely reads much better. We have incorporated your > new text in the latest draft update. > > > END > > > > TCP is also used by non-IETF application- > > layer protocols in the IoT space such as the Message Queue Telemetry > > Transport (MQTT) and its lightweight variants. > > > > It’s “Message Queuing Telemetry Transport”, and an informative > > reference to > > ISO/IEC 20922 <https://www.iso.org/standard/69466.html> wouldn’t be a > > bad thing. > > Thank you as well. We have made the text change, and we have also added an > informational reference to the MQTT specification, as suggested. > > Thanks, > > Carles (on behalf of the authors) > _______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
