[lp-wan] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc-21: (with COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lpwan-ipv6-static-context-hc-21: 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-ipv6-static-context-hc/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Just a couple of things that didn’t show up in other reviews:

— Section 3 —

   LPWAN technologies have similar network architectures but different
   terminologies.

Similar to what?  Do you mean “Different LPWAN technologies”, or are you
comparing LPWAN technologies to something else?

— Section 8.2.2.2 —

   o  their numbers MUST increase from 0 upward, from the start of the
      SCHC Packet to its end.

Just increase?  Or increase by 1?  The example in Figure 11 shows increasing by
1.  If that’s a requirement, it should say.

Figure 11 appears to have 29 windows, not 28, as it says.