How about "Supporting Asymmetric Links in Low Power Networks: AODV-RPL"?
It still fits on one line, and seems to resolve your request as well as Tero's request.
Naturally Yours,
Charlie P.
On 3/30/2021 5:33 PM, satish
anamalamudi wrote:
Dear all,
In my opinion, it is good to include AODV-RPL acronym within the title of the draft.
Regards,Satish--
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 12:03 AM S.V.R.Anand <anandsvr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
>
With Regards,Dr. Satish Anamalamudi, PhD.,
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
