Ben Campbell 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: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lwig-crypto-sensors/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm balloting "yes", because I think this is interesting and useful material. But, as others have mentioned, it's confusing that this appears to be a working group document, but it seems to be about the authors' personal design and experimentations. Otherwise, I just have a few editorial comments: §2, first paragraph, third sentence: Missing article before "CoAP base specification". §4.1, paragraph 4: "Once both peers...": What peers? Does this use the term "peer" for the server? §4.1, last _word_: missing article before Igrp. §4.2: "While this is not impossible in data object security solutions either, it is not the typical arrangement either." I suspect the first "either" was not intended. §5: "It is written in nesC programming language..." missing article before "nesC". _______________________________________________ Lwip mailing list Lwip@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip
