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

[Tero Kivinen <[e-mail]>]

Charlie Perkins writes:
> Regarding the need for the Vendor IE section:  it still seems to me that the
> section would work well as an appendix.  But, especially if it is to be
> maintained in the normative text, perhaps the title could be changed to
> "Vendor Specific IE not needed" to make the purpose of the section even more
> clear.

I moved it to the appendix and changed the title to "Vendor Specific
IE in IEEE 802.15.4".

> On further reflection, I think you are indeed right that any additional
> security policy should anyway be checked at protocol layers higher than the
> MAC layer, and your wording in the Security Considerations section does
> express that thought.
> 
> Miniscule editorial suggestions follow:
> 
>   * "                                              it is never
>     encrypted, but they may be authenticated"
>       + the clauses are mismatched.  I think the simplest fix is to delete the
>         word "they".

Fixed.

>   * "IETF would requests" --> "IETF would request" --> "The IETF would
>     request" --> "The IETF requests"
>       + The first one is wrong, the second one uses the subjunctive but I
>         don't know why, the third one sounds a little better to me, but the
>         fourth one is declarative and I think that is actually best for what
>         is intended.  In the next sentence I think that "Furthermore IETF"
>         should be "Furthermore the IETF".  This could simply be a regional
>         preference on my part.

Fixed, here is whole paragraph:

5.  Request to allocate IETF IE

   The IETF requests that the 802.15 Working Group allocate an ID for a
   Payload IE for IETF use.  Furthermore the IETF understands that only
   one ID will be issued to it.

> I'd also like to echo Pascal's appreciation for your production of this badly
> needed Internet Draft.

I will submit the modified draft now.
-- 
[e-mail]