Last Call Review of draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-12
review-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-12-opsdir-lc-hares-2016-05-09-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 15) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2016-05-03 | |
| Requested | 2016-03-23 | |
| Authors | Nancy Cam-Winget , Jonathan Hui , Daniel Popa | |
| I-D last updated | 2016-05-09 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -12
by Christer Holmberg
(diff)
Secdir Early review of -07 by Chris M. Lonvick (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Chris M. Lonvick (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -12 by Susan Hares (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Susan Hares |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 12 (document currently at 15) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2016-05-09 |
review-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-12-opsdir-lc-hares-2016-05-09-00
Nancy, Jonathan, Daniel: I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Status of draft: Ready for publication. A few editorial nits found Editorial nits: #1 p 7 in 4.1 paragraph 1 Old/the frequency of large file transfers, e.g., firmware download of all metering devices, is typically much lower than the frequency of sending configuration messages or queries. / New / Old/the frequency of large file transfers (e.g., firmware download of all metering devices) is typically much lower than the frequency of sending configuration messages or queries. / Why: use of the (e.g….. ) should be common across paragraph. #2 p. 11 Concerned about RFCs text in 7.1.3 “Additional metrics may be defined in companion RFCs.” Editorial comment: Is this really a statement for an RFCs? This sentence may be sufficient, but it seemed a bit odd. #3 p. 12 section 7.1.4 – same statement as in 7.1.3 #4 p. 14 section 7.2.2 paragraph 3 Starting with “These include: Timetimeslotslotted channel… “ Editorial comment: It would be wiser to use a hanging text for this list. Old/ These include: Timetimeslotslotted channel hopping (TSCH), specifically designed for application domains such as process automation, Low latency deterministic networks (LLDN), for application domains such as factory automation, Deterministic and synchronous multi-channel extension (DSME), for general industrial and commercial application domains that includes Channel diversity to increase network robustness, and Asynchronous multi-channel adaptation (AMCA), for large infrastructure application domains. / New These include: · Timetimeslotslotted channel hopping (TSCH): specifically designed for application domains such as process automation, · Low latency deterministic networks (LLDN): for application domains such as factory automation, · Deterministic and synchronous multi-channel extension (DSME): for general industrial and commercial application domains that includes Channel diversity to increase network robustness, and · Asynchronous multi-channel adaptation (AMCA): for large infrastructure application domains. /