Thanks for your edits. They look fine to me. Carlos
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 12:12 PM Yong-Geun Hong <yonggeun.h...@gmail.com> 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 < > nore...@ietf.org>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 >
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
