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

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

To address your bulleted comments:
Why is Section 5 included: Section 5 is informative on using the Vendor Specific IE.  Although it isn’t strictly needed, it doesn’t hurt and could help a reader to better understand
Rewording Section 6: You’re correct, the sentence should be reworded to state "IETF requests that the 802.15.4 Working Group to allocate an ID for a Payload IE for IETF use.
different security model requires another IE: as per the 802.15 operations manual - " Only one number shall be assigned to an external organization (e.g an SDO or an open alliance/consortium) from an ID category.  
Pat Kinney
Kinney Consulting LLC
IEEE 802.15 WG vice chair, SC chair
ISA100 co-chair, ISA100.20 chair
O: +1.847.960.3715
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>

On 20, Oct2016, at 23:21, Charlie Perkins <[e-mail]> wrote:

Hello folks,
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, seehttp://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html <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.
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.
Section 6 should be reworded so that the request is made to ANA, not 802.15.4
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
Although I have made a number of editorial suggestions, I think the document still will need a close proofreading.
For other comments, please refer to the attached rfcdiff file.
Regards,
Charlie P.
<Diff  draft-kivinen-802-15-ie-02.txt - draft-kivinen-802-15-ie-02cep.txt.htm><draft-kivinen-802-15-ie-02cep.txt>