Hi Stephen, Many thanks for your review. I see your point. The wording is changed in the next revision -09.
Best regards, Jens -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 14. december 2016 03:01 To: The IESG <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Samita Chakrabarti <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule-08: (with COMMENT) Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule-08: 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-dect-ule/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- section 3, last para: "PP node MUST NOT play the role of a 6LoWPAN Router (6LR)." I reckon that's a bogus MUST NOT. I think what you mean is that this spec doesn't define how a PP can be a 6LR. But a bit of h/w and s/w can clearly do both no matter how many MUST NOTs we write. (That may be a difference to the usual DECT setup, not sure.) _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
