Last Call Review of draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-12
review-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-12-opsdir-lc-hares-2016-05-09-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2016-05-03
Requested 2016-03-23
Authors Nancy Cam-Winget, Jonathan Hui, Daniel Popa
Draft last updated 2016-05-09
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -12 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir Early review of -07 by Chris Lonvick (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Chris Lonvick (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -12 by Susan Hares (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Susan Hares 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-12-opsdir-lc-hares-2016-05-09
Reviewed rev. 12 (document currently at 15)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2016-05-09

Review
review-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-12-opsdir-lc-hares-2016-05-09

Nancy, Jonathan, Daniel: 

 

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These  comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the 

IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

 

Status of draft:  Ready for publication.   A few editorial nits found

 

Editorial nits: 

 

#1 p 7 in 4.1 paragraph 1 

 

Old/the frequency of large file transfers, e.g., firmware download of all metering devices, is typically much lower than the frequency of sending configuration messages or queries. /

 

New / Old/the frequency of large file transfers (e.g., firmware download of all metering devices) is typically much lower than the frequency of sending configuration messages or queries. /

 

Why: use of the (e.g….. ) should be common across paragraph. 

 

#2 p. 11 Concerned about RFCs text in 7.1.3

 

“Additional metrics may be defined in companion RFCs.” 

Editorial comment:  Is this really a statement for an RFCs?  This sentence may be sufficient, but it seemed a bit odd. 

 

#3 p. 12 section 7.1.4 – same statement as in 7.1.3 

 

#4 p. 14 section 7.2.2 paragraph 3 

 

Starting with “These include: Timetimeslotslotted channel… “ 

 

Editorial comment: It would be wiser to use a hanging text for this list. 

 

Old/

   These include: Timetimeslotslotted channel hopping

   (TSCH), specifically designed for application domains such as process

   automation, Low latency deterministic networks (LLDN), for

   application domains such as factory automation, Deterministic and

   synchronous multi-channel extension (DSME), for general industrial

   and commercial application domains that includes Channel diversity to

   increase network robustness, and Asynchronous multi-channel

   adaptation (AMCA), for large infrastructure application domains.

/

New

These include: 

·

         

Timetimeslotslotted channel hopping  (TSCH):   specifically designed for application domains such as process

automation, 

·

         

Low latency deterministic networks (LLDN):   for   application domains such as factory automation,

·

         

 Deterministic and synchronous multi-channel extension (DSME):  for general industrial and commercial application domains that includes Channel diversity to increase network robustness, and 

·

         

Asynchronous multi-channel adaptation (AMCA):  for large infrastructure application domains.

/