Subject: Re: [Roll] Adoption draft-martocci-roll-building-routing-reqs-01.txt as a new ROLL WG document (JP Vasseur)

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:04:57 +0200

Hello all,

Great job and very informative document ! I'm in favour of the adoption as a WG document.
Better late that never, I have a few editorial suggestions that you may want to include. See below.
The first one might actually uncover an issue with the contents as well, though.

Dominique

Dominique BARTHEL
France Télécom Division R&D		TECH/MATIS
28 chemin du Vieux Chêne		e-mail : [email-masked]
38243 Meylan Cedex			voice : (+33) 4 76 76 45 22
France					

* Section 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 : you seem to be using "k" and "K" interchangeably. Which has me wondering if your "b" actually means "bits" or "Bytes". I suggest you spell it out at least in the first instance.
* Section 2.1.3 : the sentence "As noted in ..." reads strange to me. Is "functions" the verb?
* Section 2.2.3 : "necessarily need to" looks like an unnecessary pleonasm to me
* Section 3.3 : "fire-resisted" -> "fire-resistant" ?
* Section 4.1.4 : "with no additional setup than what is ..." -> "with no additional setup compared to what is ..." ?
* Section 4.1.4 : "No bound information from other nodes MUST need be reconfigured". Incorrect sentence, and not sure what you actually mean.
* Section 4.7 : "the ongoing maintenance ... is equally important to be simple and inexpensive" -> "it is equally important for the ... to be ..."
* Section 4.9.7 : "Devices SHOULD optionally persist communication paths across boots". Strictly speaking, "to persist" is not a transitive verb. I suggest to use "to reuse" or "to remember".
* Section 11.1.2 ; A period/full stop is missing before "Wireless devices SHOULD be ..."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 09:55:36 +0200
From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Roll] ** Resending ** Re: Adoption
	draft-martocci-roll-building-routing-reqs-01.txt as a new ROLL WG
	document
To: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="US-ASCII"

As you know building automation is part of our charter. Could you please let us know what you think about this ID (in favor or opposed)?

Thanks.

JP.

On 10/14/08 4:42 PM, "JP Vasseur" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Dear WG,
> 
> A new revision of draft-martocci-roll-building-routing-reqs-01.txt has 
> just been posted that addresses many of comments that we all provided so far.
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-martocci-roll-building-routi
> ng-req
> s-01.txt
> 
> Are you in favor/opposed to the adoption 
> draft-martocci-roll-building-routing-reqs-01.txt as a ROLL WG document ?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> JP.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Roll mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:47:51 +0200

I am in favor.
Nicolas

[email-masked] 
Envoyé par : [email-masked]
19/10/2008 21:00
Veuillez répondre à
[email-masked]

A
[email-masked]
cc

Objet
Roll Digest, Vol 9, Issue 17

Send Roll mailing list submissions to
                 [email-masked]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
                 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
                 [email-masked]

You can reach the person managing the list at
                 [email-masked]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Roll digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. ** Resending ** Re: Adoption
      draft-martocci-roll-building-routing-reqs-01.txt as a new ROLL WG
      document (JP Vasseur)

Message: 1
                 draft-martocci-roll-building-routing-reqs-01.txt as a new 
ROLL WG

As you know building automation is part of our charter. Could you please 
let
us know what you think about this ID (in favor or opposed)?

Thanks.

JP.

> A new revision of draft-martocci-roll-building-routing-reqs-01.txt has 
just
> been posted that addresses many of comments that we all provided so far.
> 
> 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-martocci-roll-building-routing-req

> draft-martocci-roll-building-routing-reqs-01.txt as a ROLL WG document ?

------------------------------

End of Roll Digest, Vol 9, Issue 17
***********************************

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:34:24 -0500

Dominique,

Thanks so much for the comments.  I have amended the current (00) 
submission with your comment responses and will shortly be submitting an 
updated (01) document to the repository.  Please see additional comments 
below ...

<[email-masked]> 
Sent by: [email-masked]
10/21/2008 11:08 AM

To
<[email-masked]>
cc

Subject
Re: [Roll] Adoption     draft-martocci-roll-building-routing-reqs-01.txt 
as a new        ROLL WG document (JP Vasseur)

Hello all,

Great job and very informative document ! I'm in favour of the adoption as 
a WG document.
Better late that never, I have a few editorial suggestions that you may 
want to include. See below.
The first one might actually uncover an issue with the contents as well, 
though.

Dominique

Dominique BARTHEL
France Télécom Division R&D                              TECH/MATIS
28 chemin du Vieux Chêne                                 e-mail : 
[email-masked]
38243 Meylan Cedex                                               voice : 
(+33) 4 76 76 45 22
France  

* Section 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 : you seem to be using "k" and "K" 
interchangeably. Which has me wondering if your "b" actually means "bits" 
or "Bytes". I suggest you spell it out at least in the first instance.  
Done.  I fixed all occurances of kilobyte(KB), megabyte (MB), kilobits/sec 
(kbits/sec) throughout the document.

* Section 2.1.3 : the sentence "As noted in ..." reads strange to me. Is 
"functions" the verb?
Nope.  I had hoped that 'functions' was the subject and 'address' was the 
verb!!! 
"As noted in Figure 1 the HVAC, Security and Lighting functions within a 
building address area or room level applications."
now reads
"HVAC (temp and humidity) and Lighting (room lighting, shades, solar 
loads) vendors oft times deploy area controllers.  

* Section 2.2.3 : "necessarily need to" looks like an unnecessary pleonasm 
to me
Yep. Sure is a pleonasm. 
"Wireless installation will necessarily need to keep the same work flow".
now reads
"Wireless installation process must follow the same work flow".

Yep. Changes as noted.

* Section 4.1.4 : "with no additional setup than what is ..." -> "with no 
additional setup compared to what is ..." ?
Duly noted and changed.

* Section 4.1.4 : "No bound information from other nodes MUST need be 
reconfigured". Incorrect sentence, and not sure what you actually mean.
Yes. The sentence is a bit amorphous.

What I meant was that preexisting references from other nodes to the one 
being replaced must not need to be reconfigured.  For example, if the 
outdoor air sensor fails and needs to be replaced, we cannot expect that 
all nodes referencing the outdoor air temperature to need to also be 
reconfigured. 

The sentence:

No bound information from other nodes MUST need be reconfigured. 
now reads 
Devices referencing data in the replaced device MUST not need to be 
reconfigured to the new device.
 Arguably, this is not a routing requirement.  It's more likely a naming 
or addressing requirement.

* Section 4.7 : "the ongoing maintenance ... is equally important to be 
simple and inexpensive" -> "it is equally important for the ... to be ..."
Done
The sentence
In addition to the initial installation of the system (see Section 4.1), 
the ongoing maintenance of the system is equally important to be simple 
and inexpensive.
now reads
In addition to the initial installation of the system (see Section 4.1), 
it is equally important for the ongoing maintenance of the system to be 
simple and inexpensive.

* Section 4.9.7 : "Devices SHOULD optionally persist communication paths 
across boots". Strictly speaking, "to persist" is not a transitive verb. I 
suggest to use "to reuse" or "to remember".
Done.
The sentence
Devices SHOULD optionally persist communication paths across boots
now reads
To eliminate high network traffic in power-fail or brown-out conditions ? 
previously established routes SHOULD be remembered and invoked prior to 
establishing new routes for those devices reentering the network.

* Section 11.1.2 ; A period/full stop is missing before "Wireless devices 
SHOULD be ..."

Yep. Done.

As you know building automation is part of our charter. Could you please 
let us know what you think about this ID (in favor or opposed)?

Thanks.

JP.