Hello Sri,
The review was indeed super. I'll respond sometime in the next few days.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 2/1/2017 9:09 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote:
Thank you Dale for a great review.
Charlie/Authors - Can you please respond to Dale and address these
comments.
Regards
Sri
On 1
,
I have not yet seen a response to this review. Do you think you will be able
to get to this in the next day or two? The document is on the February 16 2017
telechat and I would like to see resolution to these issues in time for the
other ADs to ballot.
Thanks
Suresh
On 2/2/17, 1:10 AM, "Ch
Hello Dale,
Thanks for the thorough review. My follow-up comments are inline below.
On 1/31/2017 11:34 AM, Dale Worley wrote:
1. The Introduction states
Other types of identifiers are in
common use, and even referenced in RFC 4283.
For the reader's sanity, some sort of accounting ne
Hello Dale,
Follow-up below...
On 2/12/2017 7:13 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
There is a sort of "hidden" disadvantage to long names, especially for
tiny devices using constrained link layers. Namely, a longer name makes
it more likely to require lower-layer fragmentation. I'm not sure that
it
think this resolves
the last point of discussion that has been raised about the draft.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 2/14/2017 5:04 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
Charlie Perkins writes:
I am hesitant to replace so many MNID types by a single URN type with
substructure. What would you think about repl
Hello Dale,
I have incorporated resolutions to your comments in a new revision for
the deadling-time document. Please see a bit of follow-up below,
interspersed with your comments.
On 12/22/2018 7:35 PM, Dale Worley wrote:
Summary:
This draft is on the right track but has open issues,
Hello Dale,
I made some brief follow-up to your comments inline below. I think we
are in agreement about what needs to be done.
On 2/14/2019 6:37 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
Charlie Perkins writes:
I'm not sure about this because even in 6TiSCH networks, one could
imagine using NTP-
Hello Meral,
Regarding the following:
On 4/22/2021 5:45 PM, Meral Shirazipour via Datatracker wrote:
Section B1 says "Reclassified [RFC6998] and [RFC7416] as Informational."
RFC7416 was already Informational. What that a typo?
This is not part of the final RFC - I was just trying to follow the
Hello Meral,
Please excuse the unusually long delay it has taken for us to respond to
your comments.
Regarding the following:
On 4/22/2021 5:45 PM, Meral Shirazipour via Datatracker wrote:
> Section B1 says "Reclassified [RFC6998] and [RFC7416] as Informational."
> RFC7416 was already Informa
