Re: [lp-wan] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc-13: (with COMMENT)

[Ana Minaburo <[e-mail]>]

Dear Mirja,

First of all, thank you for reviewing our document. See my comments below

Ana

On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 10:48 AM Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc-13: 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-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The TSV-ART review flagged a problem with
> draft-ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc (Thanks Joe) which is a normative
> dependency but is already in RFC editor state. Ben also already captured
> this
> in his ballot. I also think it would be important to address this problem
> before final publication (of both docs) and the TSV ADs will coordinate
> with
> the INT ADs on this.
>

Ana: About the TSV-ART discussion, Dominique has answered to Joseph, and we
hope this clarifies the input.
SCHC behaviour is not modified or does not need anything else to compress
this new UDP option, when this option is in the header and needs to be
compressed,
the Rule have to define the way to do it.



> Minor comment:
> Sec 7.3:
> "   The Outer SCHC Rules (Figure 16) MUST process the OSCORE Options
>    fields. "
> The example section should probably not have normative language.
>
>
> Ana: Good catch, we have modified the document

Ana