[6lo] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-14: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-14: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


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



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


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-14
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points, and some nits.

Special thanks to Shwetha Bhandari for the shepherd's detailed write-up
including the WG consensus *but* the justification of the intended status is
missing.

Other thanks to Carlos Bernardos, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my
request), please consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-6lo-use-cases-14-intdir-telechat-bernardos-2022-11-17/
and I have seen Yong-Geun's reply.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric
## COMMENTS

### Abstract

The mix of acronyms (e.g., "MS/TP") and standards (e.g., IEEE or ITU) or
expanded names (e.g., "Bluetooth Low Energy") in the abstract is a little
weird. Suggest to expand the acronyms.

### Section 2.5

`safe two-way interactions` what is meant by "safe" in this context ? Should
"secure" be used ?

Also puzzling is "two-way" as it is not mentioned in other sub-sections. What
makes NFC unique here ? Is it more because it is only a 2 party link ?

### Section 2.6

`This standard addresses the requirements with high data rates such as
Internet, HDTV, audio, gaming.` s/Internet/Internet access/ ?

What does "OFDM" mean ?

### Section 2.7

"BLE" was not expanded before

The "Usage" row is very specific and not explained, e.g., I wonder whether NFC
is only used in health care.

### Section 3

Should there be a reference about "multicast being harmful" ?

Please expand/explain "ESC".

### Section 4

Should the section title better reflects the actual content ? E.g., "6LowPAN
Usages"

The difference between sections 4 and 5 is also unclear, or is the latter an
explanation of section 2.7 ? If so, the flow looks weird (suggest to move
section 2.7 inn section 5).

### Section 4.1

This section has a marketing twist that is unusual in IETF drafts.

### Section 4.3

Should there be a mention of the work done in the SNAC WG ?

## NITS

### Section 2.6

"AMI' acronym is defined at least 3 times in the document. Suggest to expand it
only once

### Section 5.6

A lot of acronyms are defined and either never used or used only once. Please
consider not defining those acronyms and use the full text.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments