Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lwig-crypto-sensors-05: Yes

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:


I'm a little confused to read

  Section 4 discusses a deployment model that the authors are
   considering for constrained environments.

in a working group draft. Is the working group proposing this?

The Introduction skips over Section 7, which could make sense for an Example,
but will likely mystify readers.

Looking at this text,

  o  There may be a large number of devices.  Configuration tasks that
      may be acceptable when performed for one device may become
      unacceptable with dozens or hundreds of devices.

I think recent DDOS attacks have shown that many more than "hundreds of "owned"
Things can cooperate to cause problems. ("It's worse than you think")


   Temporary identities (such as IPv6 addresses)
   can be used for network communication protocols once the device is

be qualified? I'm thinking that some IPv6 addressing practices would not
qualify as "temporary identities".

I wasn't sure what

   64-bit x86 linux machine serves as the broker and the RD, while a
   similar but physically different 64-bit x86 linux machine serves as
   the client that requests data from the sensor.

meant by "physically different". I was guessing "similar but physically
distinct", but I'm guessing.

Lwip mailing list

Reply via email to