[Last-Call] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-nbiot-12

Sarah Banks via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 28 September 2022 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietf.org
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2EE6C152581; Wed, 28 Sep 2022 09:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Sarah Banks via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: ops-dir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-nbiot.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, lp-wan@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 8.17.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <166438276079.55516.759458229048972108@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2022 09:32:40 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/XRsHfeqk4LiVJcvcaPOMxWFwfQY>
Subject: [Last-Call] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-nbiot-12
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2022 16:32:40 -0000

Reviewer: Sarah Banks
Review result: Ready

    The document is well written, and ready to go. This next comment doesn't
    specifically represent the OPS area, but my opinion - while it's nice to
    see us providing feedback to an SDO, I wonder if this is worth the RFC. As
    the document shepherd notes, it was written and reviewed by a very small
    group that has deep experience in the WG - the doc really reads to me like
    a contribution that could be made to the SDO directly by the authors,
    rather than an RFC that says the same thing. I don't gather the impression
    that the recommendations here are controversial, or that the IETF itself is
    really adding substantive value here. That's simply my feedback though; it
    IS well written, and nice to see a fairly thorough and thoughtful document.

Thank you,