Hello Inés,
Thank you very much for your review, and for your kind words.
Regarding your two questions below, please find next our answers:
1.- Yes, we agree to remove section 2 (unless further discussion requires to
use normative language).
2.- Section 3.1.3 of RFC 8095 lists well-known TCP functionality. We
understand that the functionality that is relevant in the scope of our
document (i.e. guidance for TCP in IoT scenarios) is already covered.
We plan to apply our updates in the next revision (-12).
Kind regards,
Carles (on behalf of the authors)
> Reviewer: Ines Robles
> Review result: Ready
>
> Document: draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-11
> Reviewer: Ines Robles
> Review Date: 2020-10-20
>
> Summary:
>
> This document provides guidance on how to implement and use the
> Transmission
> Control Protocol (TCP) in Constrained-Node Networks (CNNs), which are a
> characterstic of the Internet of Things (IoT).
>
> The document is clear to understand.
>
> Major Issues: None
>
> Minor Issues: None.
>
> Nits:
> 1- Should section 2 "Conventions used in this document" be removed? I have
> not
> found Normative language into the document 2- Questions: Following my
> understanding, the transport features provided by TCP [RFC 8095 - Section
> 3.1.3] are covered in this document, right? or there some of the mentioned
> features that does not apply to CNN?
>
> Thank you for this document,
>
> Ines
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lwip mailing list
> Lwip@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
>
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
