Hello Francis Many thanks for your review. It clearly indicates a thorough reading, this is much appreciated. I fixed all the nits in -24. Please see nbelow:
> - 1 page 3: the IT abbrev is not introduced > > - 2.1 page 5 (bundle), page 9 (slotOffset), 4.61 page 38 (2.): i.e. -> i.e., > > - 2.1 page 6 (chunk): missing closing parenthesis > All done > - 2.1 page 9 (Track): the text says the root is the destination. IMHO > the DODAG has an unique leaf which is the destination? Well, no, the traffic comes from the leaves to the root. Arguable from any node in the DODAG but then the schedule must make sure there is no collision if there are multiple sources. What's unique is the root, that's the DO in DODAG > > - 3.1 page 12: please expand the PCE abbrev here (first occurrence, > note the expansion is in 3.3. page 15: you can move or duplicate it). > > - 3.2 page 14: the 6LBR ... need -> needs > > - 4.2.2 pafge 25 figure 6: there are multiple arrows for the RS. I believe > it is a way to figure multicasting? > > - 4.3.1.1 page 27, 4.3.3 page 29, 4.5.3 page 35 (3 times), 4.7.1.2 page 42: > e.g. -> e.g., > > - 4.6 page 37: > one or more destination(s) 6TiSCH node(s) > -> > one or more destination 6TiSCH nodes > All done > Spelling: > - 1 page 3: undated -> updated Replaced by "without a date" > - 4.1.1 page 21: settig -> setting > - 4.3.3. page 29: infoirmation -> information > - 4.3.3 page 29: behaviour -> behavior > - 4.4 page 33: multithop -> multihop > - 4.7.1.1 page 42: dependant -> dependent > - 7.1 page 51: implementaton -> implementation > - A page 60 (PAW): Predicatable -> Predictable > > At the exception of the DODAG root in Track definition there is nothing which > can't be done by the RFC Editor so could require a new version. > All cool, publishing 24. Many thanks Francis! _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
