Magnus Westerlund 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Duke (Incoming TSV AD) provided the below comments and proposals that could improve the document, please consider them: First, Section 1 is an excellent description of the motivation for the document. Sec 1.2. "synchronization of ^the^ Absolute Slot Number..." "carrying ^the^ timeslot template identifier..." at the end of section, the acronym for Router Advertisements is incorrectly given as (RS). Sec 1.3. Proposed rewording for the second paragraph: "However, while a unicast RS transmitted in response [RFC6775] reduces the amount..." s/RAs or RS./RAs or RSes. In reason #3, please provide some sense of order of magnitude instead of "a very long time" Section 2. Please expand the following acronyms on first use: 6L$, RPL, PAN, JRC. "rank priority" definition: s/willing/willingness Proposed rewording of 4th paragraph in "rank priority": "Pledges MUST ignore this value. It helps enrolled devices to compare connection points." "pan priority" definition, last paragraph: insert comma after "observed PANID in the Beacon" "Join Proxy Interface ID" definition: This field communicates the Interface ID bits that should be used for this node's layer-3 address, if it should not be derived from the layer-2 address. Communication with the Join Proxy occurs in the clear. This field avoids the need for an additional service discovery process .." "network ID": s/convenience/convenient, s/identifing/identifying last paragraph: "...the it will be an opaque, seemingly random value, and will reveal nothing by itself." Finally, throughout Section 2 the draft mentions potential information leakage to attackers. Two comments on this: - I believe "proxy priority" creates a similar exposure, but doesn't mention it. - It might be good to summarize these issues in the Security Considerations as well. _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
