Thanks for your edits. They look fine to me.
Carlos
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 12:12 PM Yong-Geun Hong <yonggeun.hong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Carlos Bernardos.Thanks for your valuable comments and sorry for the late response.
To resolve your comments, I updated the draft.Please, find inline responses.And, I submitted the revision draft based on your comments.
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-15.html
It is appreciated to check again and let me know any missing points.Best regards.Yong-Geun.2022년 11월 18일 (금) 오전 4:08, Carlos Bernardos via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>님이 작성:Reviewer: Carlos Bernardos
Review result: Ready with Nits
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases. These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors.
Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they
would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along
with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on
the INT Directorate, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>.
The document describes the applicability of IPv6 over 6lo networks and provides
some examples of practical deployments. The document is well written and
provides a very good set of references for the interested reader to continue
digging.
I think given the nature of the document, there are not issues for INT-AREA, as
those aspects that would be indeed very relevant there are mostly tackled on
the many other documents that are referenced. I find the document quite
informative though and I enjoyed and learned quite a lot reading it.
Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as YES.
The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text improvements)
with the document:
- I would personally prefer not to have explicit references to WGs, as the
document probably will live longer that the 6lo WG (though there are examples
on the IETF for the other way around ;) ) and I think the document should not
assume that the reader is familiar with IETF WGs.[Hong] Update as your comment and delete explicit references to WGs.
- "for the IEEE Std 802.15.4[IEEE802159].)" --> "for the IEEE Std 802.15.4
[IEEE802159].)"[Hong] Update as your comment
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
