[6tisch] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security-14: (with COMMENT)
Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 05 December 2019 14:30 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietf.org
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8ACB1200C7; Thu, 5 Dec 2019 06:30:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security@ietf.org, Pascal Thubert <pthubert@cisco.com>, 6tisch-chairs@ietf.org, pthubert@cisco.com, 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.111.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Message-ID: <157555620387.16491.2371215288094382714.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 06:30:03 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/fYD7Z2H9A9ruUi3t8hsHzi_JMSQ>
Subject: [6tisch] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security-14: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "Discuss link layer model for Deterministic IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e, and impacts on RPL and 6LoWPAN such as resource allocation" <6tisch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6tisch/>
List-Post: <mailto:6tisch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 14:30:04 -0000
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security-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/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-minimal-security/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for addressing my discuss points and also other editorial comments! Also great that you clarified/introduced COJP_MAX_JOIN_ATTEMPTS; I think that also a really good change! ----------------- I only leave this old comment in here because it wasn't further discussed: I'm putting this one question in the comments section because there is no concern that it does not work as specified but I wonder about the design of the Parameter Update Response Message. Given the Parameter Update Message is a confirmable CoAP message that is transmitted reliable and the content of the Parameter Update Response Message is empty, why do you need to send the Parameter Update Response Message at all?
- [6tisch] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-… Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker
- Re: [6tisch] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on dr… Mališa Vučinić
- Re: [6tisch] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on dr… Mirja Kuehlewind