Transmission of IPv6 Packets over ITU-T G.9959 Networks
draft-ietf-6lo-lowpanz-08

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

(Brian Haberman) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Comment (2014-10-30 for -07)
No email
send info
In Section 2.3: s/section Section 3/Section 3/

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

(Richard Barnes) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Comment (2014-10-28 for -07)
No email
send info
= Section 5 =
   o  Replace "802.15.4 short address" with "<Interface><G.9959 NodeID>"

   o  Replace "802.15.4 PAN ID" with "G.9959 HomeID"

Neither of the terms "802.15.4 short address" nor "802.15.4 PAN ID" appear in RFC 6282 or draft-ietf-6lo-ghc (although "short address" is used in 6282). I think exactly what is being substituted should be made more clear.

I was looking because it didn't seem to me that the HomeID is used at all in the format described in this document (right?). So I don't really understand why it would need to be compressed if it is not included at all in the format. But then I looked in the documents about compression and could not figure out what it is supposed to correspond to since the PAN ID does not appear.

If the HomeID is used somehow, then I think the privacy considerations text (which is generally great!) need to be extended to cover that, since the claims made about uniqueness/persistence of the NodeID do not apply to HomeID+NodeID.

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2014-10-28 for -07)
No email
send info
I've no objection to the publication of this document.

Please note that section 1.1 has "ABR: Authoritative 6LBR ([RFC6775])"
without defining "6LBR", but 4.4 has "authoritative border router (ABR)"

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Ted Lemon) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2014-10-30)
No email
send info
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS!

(Kathleen Moriarty) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2014-10-30)
No email
send info
Thanks for adding text on logging concerns related to privacy.

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

Comment (2014-10-29 for -07)
No email
send info
I cringed at just about every MUST. Brian can explain why. Whether the WG actually does anything about it is between you and your AD. :-)

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection