[6lo] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac-06: (with COMMENT)

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Tue, 29 November 2016 23:28 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietf.org
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9E96129434; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 15:28:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.38.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148046209788.11736.10660684548298111998.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 15:28:17 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/0rEJK-9hDFX9fLlVDxoPOR3XJK4>
Cc: 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, samitac.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac@ietf.org, 6lo@ietf.org
Subject: [6lo] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 23:28:18 -0000

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac-06: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Substantive:

- 1.3 Do I undertand correctly that this section is strictly an overview
of something described elsewhere? If so, I am surprised to find the MUSTs
in the the 5th paragraph from the end of the section.

- 2 and 3 also have some MUSTs that seem to describe MS/TP nodes in
general--are those new requirements described in this spec, or existing
requirements? (If the later, please consider stating them without 2119
keywords.)

-6, 2nd paragraph: Why is the SHOULD NOT not a MUST NOT? What is the
consequences of ignoring the SHOULD NOT?

- 12, 2nd paragraph: "MS/TP networks are by definition wired and not
susceptible to casual
   eavesdropping. "
I think this depends on too many factors to state this broadly. It may be
easier to eves drop on an unprotected piece of wire than, say, an
encrypted wireless link.

- 14.2: [EUI-64] and [I-D.ietf-6lo-privacy-considerations] seem to be
cited normatively.

Editorial:
- 4: Please expand MSDU