Hello, I prefer to retain AODV-RPL in the title. AODV-RPL acronym has already been referred by research community in their publications, and roll community uses this acronym to refer to this draft. Also, I feel AODV and RPL acronyms are familiar to the wireless and low power and lossy networks world. How about "AODV-RPL Extensions for Asymmetric Links in Low Power Networks", or "AODV-RPL Support for Asymmetric Links in LLNs" ? Regards Anand On 21-03-28 10:39:53, Charlie Perkins wrote: > > > Hello Tero, > > Thanks for your comments, useful as always. Please see a bit of > follow-up below. > > > On 3/22/2021 9:41 AM, Tero Kivinen via Datatracker wrote: > >The title of the draft has some acronyms which are not expanded (AODV, P2P) and > >if you expand them the title comes way too long. I would propose a usable > >title, which might not need to use all possible acronyms, but would better > >explain what this document is trying to do. > > How about "Supporting Asymmetric Links in Low Power Networks"? Replacing > "LLNs" by "Low Power Networks" is probably O.K. because lossy is almost > implicit given low power (or, often, reality). > > > > > >Nits: > > > >In section 1 the text "RPL [RFC6550] (Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy > >Networks)" defines acronyms differently than what is used everywhere else. In > >all other cases the document uses format where the acronym is in parenthesis > >after the full text, i.e. "Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks > >(RPL) [RFC6550]" format. I would propose using the same format also for here. > Done. > > > > >In section 1 there is acronym DAG which is not expanded, expand it on first > >use. > I think that sentence reads better just omitting DAG. > > > > Also there are unexpanded acronyms DAO, P2MP, which are not used anywhere > >else, perhaps just expand them here. In same paragraph there is also acronym > >MOP which is not expanded here on its first use, but it is expanded later. > >Expand it here on its first use. > > Done, except that I thought it would be better to exhibit the acronym > DAO since it is well known to readers familiar with RPL. > > > > > >What is the difference between different reserve bits X and r in sections > >4.1/4.2 and 4.3? > I made them all to be reserved bits 'X'. > > > > >Period missing from the end of sentence of the Option Length description in > >Section 4.3. > Done. > > > > >In the IANA considerations section I propose add a note to RFC editor saying > >that the sentences saying " The parenthesized numbers are only suggestions." > >needs to be removed prior publication. > > > > > > Done! > > Naturally Yours, > Charlie P. > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
