[6tisch] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-13: (with COMMENT)

[Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-13: 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-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon/



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

One question: How is the proxy priority supposed to be calculated/set? Is there
a default value?

Is also support points raised in Roman's discuss points. More clarification is
needed.

Editorial comment:
I would recommend to repeat the abstract in the intro as, as stated in the RFC
style guide RFC7322 section 4.3, "[...] an Abstract is not a substitute for an
Introduction; the RFC should be self-contained as if there were no Abstract."

Nit: sec 1.3:
s/Although However/Although/ or s/Although However/However/ ?
s/a unicast RS may be transmitted in response[RFC6775] reduces the amount
of.../a unicast RS that may be transmitted in response [RFC6775] reduces the
amount of.../ ? (Also note missing space before [)