Subject: [Roll] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-11: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2021 02:13:03 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

***Thank you for having addressed all my points raised during the IESG ballot
of 2021-04-21 with the revised I-D*** (BTW, never hesitate to nudge an AD in
the absence of action, I only reacted when processing my pending DISCUSS today
:-( ... )

Thank you for the work put into this document. I seems that all cases have been
thought of :-) Good job! and having a shorter path between two RPL nodes can be
beneficial of course.

Special thanks to Peter Van der Stock for the IoT directorate review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10-iotdir-telechat-van-der-stok-2021-04-15/

Minor regret on the age of the document shepherd's write-up dated 2 years ago
and about the -06 version. Little is said about the WG consensus. But, I am
trusting the responsible AD on the consensus.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== PREVIOUS DISCUSS (for archive) ==

A very trivial to fix but I do want to have a justification of using
"point-to-point" (typically used over the two sides of a single link) vs.
"peer-to-peer" (typically used over multiple links). Is it intentional by the
ROLL WG ? Did I fail to understand the purpose of this document ? (quite
possible of course!). I am afraid that many people will interpret the
"point-to-point" like me.

== PREVIOUS COMMENTS (for archive) ==

-- Section 4.3 --
Figure 3 has a 'X' while the text has a 'r' ;)

Any reason why using "Floor((7+(Prefix Length))/8) octets" rather than the
simple "Ceil(Prefix Length/8)" ?

-- Section 6.1 --
"Each node maintains a sequence number" does it impact constrained nodes ?