Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-20: 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-6tisch-minimal/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Substantive Comments -- Section 4, 2nd paragraph, "A node MAY use different values": Is that intended to weaken the RECOMMENDED in the previous sentence? (If not, then is the MAY needed at all?) -- 4.5.1, first 3 paragraphs: Why are the SHOULDs not MUSTs? Can you articulate why it might be reasonable to make other choices? -- 4.5.2, 3rd paragraph, "It MAY be necessary..." That seems like a statement of fact. Please consider non-2119 language. --- 4th paragraph: It's not clear to me if the MUST in "MUST be sent as per the 802.15.4 specification..." is constraining options from that specification, or just referring to requirements that exists in that specification. If the latter, please consider descriptive rather than normative language. (e.g. "The 802.15.4 specification requires...." -- 6.1, 3rd paragraph: Why is the SHOULD not a MUST? When might it make sense not to follow those rules? - Editorial Comments -- Abstract: Please expand 6TICH on first mention _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
