[Ecrit] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-21: (with COMMENT)

["Mirja Kuehlewind" <[e-mail]>]

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-21: 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-ecrit-car-crash/



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

A few comments:
- "Migration of the three architectural models to next-generation
(all-IP)" could be an own section
- Shouldn't this last part of section 6 ("If new data blocks are
needed...") go into I-D.ietf-ecrit-ecall?
- There is a lot of redunancy within this document but also compared to
I-D.ietf-ecrit-ecall (mainly section 8, some parts of 9, and 10). Is
there no better way to handle this?
- There is no action to unlock door (in section 9). I assume that's
because of the security risk of someone unlocking doors remotely. If
that's the case I would also remove this from the example list used
previously in the doc several times. Maybe instead discuss this case in
the security considerations?
- Does it really need a Lamp State Registry? What additional states could
come up in future beside 'on', 'off', and 'flash'? And even is there are
additional states, will that change dynamically enough to have an own
registry?