[Int-dir] draft-kivinen-802-15-ie-02.txt

[Tero Kivinen <[e-mail]>]

Charlie Perkins writes:
> I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for
> <draft-kivinen-802-15-ie-02.txt>.  These comments were written primarily for
> the benefit of the Internet Area Directors.  Document editors and shepherd(s)
> should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other
> IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments
> that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see 
> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html.
> 
> I made a lot of minor editorial changes to the draft, because I think that the
> draft needs improvements for readability and clarity.  For this purpose,
> please see the attached files.  draft-kivinen-802-15-ie-02cep.txt contains all
> of my comments (marked with "CEP") and revisions.

I have tried to make all your changes to my draft, but as your review
was for 02, and there was already 03 out there, I could not make
direct apply for your changes. Please, check them from the attached
version (both final text and diff from your version to the 04
version).

I will submit the 04 version when I get feedback from you, whether the
changes done were ok. 

> A few more general comments:
> 
>   * I do not understand why Section 5 is included.  It doesn't seem to have
>     any effect on the request for allocation.

The reason why section 5 is needed, is to explain that there is no
need to do vendor specific range in the IETF IE, as there is so many
other ways to do vendor specific IEs already.

I.e., section 8 do not have range reserved for Private Use. In normal
case we always have such range, now we do not.

>   * Section 6 should be reworded so that the request is made to ANA, not
>     802.15.4

Pat Kinney already commented this, and I took his text for this.

>   * Since all uses of the newly allocated IE will share the same security
>     model, perhaps it should be mentioned that if a different security model
>     is needed, another IE might be requested

We cannot get another IE, as Operations manual does not permit
802.15.4 to give us another...

On the other hand, higher layer processing those IETF IEs will make
their own security processing checks, and we do not really want to
use MAC level checks. The MAC level checks are needed for those things
which are acted on the MAC level. IETF IE should not have anything
like that, so we do not need to rely on the MAC level checks. 

>   * Although I have made a number of editorial suggestions, I think the
>     document still will need a close proofreading.

That seems to be always an issue with my drafts :-)

> For other comments, please refer to the attached rfcdiff file.

For the:

    /* CEP: The above paragraph states that the Length field is part
       of the IETF IE, but the Length field is not shown in Figure 1.
       */

The Length field is part of the IEEE 802.15.4 Payload IE format, and
is not shown in the Figure 1, as it is not part of the IETF IE subtype
format.

I changed the text to say :

	The length of the subtype content can be calculated from the
	IEEE 802.15.4 Payload IE Length field of the IETF IE.

I.e., added "IEEE 802.15.4 Payload IE" before the Length field to
indicate it is not part of the IETF IE.

-- 
[e-mail]