[Lwip] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-11: Discuss

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-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. It is an important topic and the
document is both easy to ready and detailed.

Please find below one trivial DISCUSS point and a couple of non-blocking
COMMENT points but please also check: - Ines Robles IoT directorate review:
        https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-11-iotdir-telechat-robles-2020-10-20/
- Bernie Volz Internet directorate review:
        https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-lwig-tcp-constrained-node-networks-11-intdir-telechat-volz-2020-10-20/

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== DISCUSS ==

Please replace all RFC 2460 references to RFC 8200. Trivial to fix ;-)


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

== COMMENTS ==

Should a reference to RFC 8900 be added in the MTU discussion in section 4.1 ?

-- Section 2 --
As noted by many, the BCP 14 boiler plate is the old one and the normative
terminology is not used in this informational document. => remove it ?