[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
- [6lo] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-6… Ben Campbell
- Re: [6lo] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ie… Kerry Lynn