Subject: [Roll] ARE: Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-turnon-rfc8138-12: (with COMMENT)

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 12:12:41 +0000

Hello Murray:

Many thanks for your time, review, and in-depth checking.

Let's see below:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The glossary lists "OF" and "OCP", but those acronyms are not present in the
> document.

Removed the terms. Added subDAG instead to comply with Tiru's comment in a parallel thread.

> 
> I had to do some bouncing between documents while reading Section 3.  Figure
> 1 shows what appear to be five flags, not four, and says "T" is declared in
> "position 2", though in the diagram it looks like the third position.  If position
> numbering is zero-based, that should be made clear (it's not in RFC
> 6550 either).

Actually it is indicated in RFC 6550, though well hidden, see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6550#section-20.14
See also https://www.iana.org/assignments/rpl/rpl.xhtml#dodag-config-option-flags 

Again, many thanks for your thorough checks, 

Please see https://github.com/roll-wg/roll-turnon-rfc8138/commit/9984c51ef7c762dd357362aed7a85e822ccf6c24 and let me know if you think I should change/clarify something there.

Take care,

Pascal