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

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:30:48 -0800

Stephen Farrell 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- 1.3: "cost effective" and similar marketing language is
better avoided. I'd say deleting that sentence is better.

- section 5: It's not clear to me why the 115k data rate
"dictates" header compression to reduce latency. I'm not
doubting that it might, but it's not clear from what's
stated that it does.

- Appendices B/C: I'm not clear how these are not part of
the standard. I think what you mean is that the code is
not, but the algorithms in fact are in fact necessary to
implement this. (I also agree with Alia's suggestion to add
the IETF trust <CODE BEGINS> stuff, assuming that's not
problematic.)