Thanks. //Zahed ________________________________ From: Yong-Geun Hong <yonggeun.h...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 12:29:10 PM To: Zaheduzzaman Sarker <zaheduzzaman.sar...@ericsson.com> Cc: The IESG <i...@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-6lo-use-ca...@ietf.org <draft-ietf-6lo-use-ca...@ietf.org>; 6lo-cha...@ietf.org <6lo-cha...@ietf.org>; 6lo@ietf.org <6lo@ietf.org>; shwetha.bhand...@gmail.com <shwetha.bhand...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-14: (with COMMENT)
Dear Zaheduzzaman Sarker. 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 12월 15일 (목) 오후 7:25, Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org<mailto:nore...@ietf.org>>님이 작성: Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-14: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for working on this document. This was a good read for me. #Comments - The comparison table in section 2.7 seems nice one, however, as there is no description given on how to interpret the Low or Moderate, frequent or infrequent. It kind of fails to provided the intended comparison. Like the scale is not YES and NO which cloud be easily interpreted, but No, Low, Moderate, High and perhaps Yes. If there is such scale already available in RFC or other documents would be nice to provide references. [Hong] Based on RFC 8578, I update the expression : No -> No, Low, Moderate, High -> Yes - There are terms used like 4G, LTE in this document, I don't think those need to be that much of generation specific and could easily be replaces by "cellular" unless we see an need to mention a particular cellular access generation for some specific reasons. [Hong] Replace 4G, LTE -> cellular -
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
