Detecting Unwanted Location Trackers
charter-ietf-dult-01

[Ballot comment]
Looks good. Just a few nits:

- “have interfaces are relevant” should be “have interfaces that are relevant”

- “To address this threat of unwanted tracking” I suggest “To address the threat of unwanted tracking” instead.

- it looks like the bullets under work item 3 are missing some kind of introductory text (“which will:” or similar, I’m not sure what’s appropriate).

[Ballot comment]
- In "The full system consists of three major subsystems" it's not obvious what "full system" is being talked about -- the pre-existing tracker system, or the TBD DULT system. The subsequent sentence, "These three subsystems have interfaces that are relevant to unwanted tracking", implies it's the pre-existing system, but I'm dubious that those three points define the major subsystems of those networks as currently built. For one thing, the list completely omits the intended use case of letting the owner find their keys.

- "To address this threat" in the third paragraph -- presumably "this threat" refers back to paragraph 1's "These accessories can be misused to track another person’s location without their knowledge", but the interpolation of paragraph 2 makes that unclear. I suggest spelling out what threat you're talking about or otherwise disambiguating.

- I agree that the reference to "gender-based violence experts" should be retained but worded in a way that doesn't seem to exclude the possibility of consulting other experts as well.

NITS:

- “unwanted tracked detection” should presumably be "unwanted tracker detection” although better still "detection of unwanted trackers" since then there's no ambiguity about what "unwanted" is modifying.

- "tag" is maybe a little too much in-crowd jargon. Define or better still, reword.

- “create new vector” should be "create a new vector" or "create new vectors"

- The wording "IETF 6lo WG and Bluetooth SIG" can make it sound as though the Bluetooth SIG is an IETF group. Easy fix: "Bluetooth SIG and IETF 6lo WG".

[Ballot comment]
One question, does all the three program of work to publish standard track specifications covered by one standard track milestone as specified now? May be we should put more clarity in the milestones to reflect the desired program of work.

[Ballot comment]
I do not see what "The WG will work with gender-based violence experts throughout development of the protocol" has to do in the list of program of work; may I suggest to move it at the end at the same place as discussions with Bluetooth SIG? Why limiting the interaction to only gender-based violence ?

What is the intended status for "Design mechanisms to ensure that devices that do not correctly implement..." ?

The informal document in the milestones section does not appear in the "program of work", suggest to add it there as well.