Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac-06: 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-6lo-6lobac/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Substantive: - 1.3 Do I undertand correctly that this section is strictly an overview of something described elsewhere? If so, I am surprised to find the MUSTs in the the 5th paragraph from the end of the section. - 2 and 3 also have some MUSTs that seem to describe MS/TP nodes in general--are those new requirements described in this spec, or existing requirements? (If the later, please consider stating them without 2119 keywords.) -6, 2nd paragraph: Why is the SHOULD NOT not a MUST NOT? What is the consequences of ignoring the SHOULD NOT? - 12, 2nd paragraph: "MS/TP networks are by definition wired and not susceptible to casual eavesdropping. " I think this depends on too many factors to state this broadly. It may be easier to eves drop on an unprotected piece of wire than, say, an encrypted wireless link. - 14.2: [EUI-64] and [I-D.ietf-6lo-privacy-considerations] seem to be cited normatively. Editorial: - 4: Please expand MSDU _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
