IPv6 Mesh over BLUETOOTH(R) Low Energy Using the Internet Protocol Support Profile (IPSP)
draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-10
Yes
(Erik Kline)
No Objection
(Alissa Cooper)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Barry Leiba)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Francesca Palombini)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Murray Kucherawy)
(Warren Kumari)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment
(2021-02-24 for -09)
Not sent
Thank you Catherine Meadows for the SECDIR review.
Erik Kline Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -09)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Not sent
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Not sent
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Not sent
Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2021-06-09)
Sent for earlier
Thank you for addressing my discuss and comment points!
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Not sent
Francesca Palombini Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Not sent
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Not sent
Martin Duke Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2021-04-22)
Sent
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS.
Martin Vigoureux Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2021-02-24 for -09)
Not sent
Hi, thank you for this document, just a minor comment: The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP14 RFC 2119 [RFC2119], RFC 8174 [RFC8174], when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. Strictly, this is not the text from 8174. "NOT RECOMMENDED" is missing.
Murray Kucherawy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Not sent
Robert Wilton Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2021-02-22 for -09)
Sent
Hi, Thank you for this document. A couple of minor comments relating to the diagram in 3.2 (figure 2): (1) It wasn't clear to me why the top left node was a 6LR rather than a 6LN. If this is deliberate, it might be worth a sentence to explain the purpose here. (2) I initially found the bubble around the v6 Mesh to be confusing - I thought that it means that all the nodes are interconnected. I'm not sure whether the bubble really helps the diagram, and probably could be removed, of if it is kept, I would suggest adding more space between the bubble line and the mesh network inside so that the bubble line isn't confused as representing links between the nodes. Regards, Rob
Warren Kumari Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Not sent