Subject: [6lo] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac-06: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 15:28:17 -0800

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac-06: 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-6lo-6lobac/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Substantive:

- 1.3 Do I undertand correctly that this section is strictly an overview
of something described elsewhere? If so, I am surprised to find the MUSTs
in the the 5th paragraph from the end of the section.

- 2 and 3 also have some MUSTs that seem to describe MS/TP nodes in
general--are those new requirements described in this spec, or existing
requirements? (If the later, please consider stating them without 2119
keywords.)

-6, 2nd paragraph: Why is the SHOULD NOT not a MUST NOT? What is the
consequences of ignoring the SHOULD NOT?

- 12, 2nd paragraph: "MS/TP networks are by definition wired and not
susceptible to casual
   eavesdropping. "
I think this depends on too many factors to state this broadly. It may be
easier to eves drop on an unprotected piece of wire than, say, an
encrypted wireless link.

- 14.2: [EUI-64] and [I-D.ietf-6lo-privacy-considerations] seem to be
cited normatively.

Editorial:
- 4: Please expand MSDU