Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-13: 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-enrollment-enhanced-beacon/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- One question: How is the proxy priority supposed to be calculated/set? Is there a default value? Is also support points raised in Roman's discuss points. More clarification is needed. Editorial comment: I would recommend to repeat the abstract in the intro as, as stated in the RFC style guide RFC7322 section 4.3, "[...] an Abstract is not a substitute for an Introduction; the RFC should be self-contained as if there were no Abstract." Nit: sec 1.3: s/Although However/Although/ or s/Although However/However/ ? s/a unicast RS may be transmitted in response[RFC6775] reduces the amount of.../a unicast RS that may be transmitted in response [RFC6775] reduces the amount of.../ ? (Also note missing space before [) _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
