Ballot for draft-kivinen-802-15-ie
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
= Section 1 = "IEEE Std 802.15.4 [IEEE-802-15-4] is a standard, referred to by RFC 4944 ([RFC4944]), et al, that enables very low-cost, low-power communications." Does "et al refer" to all the documents that update RFC 4944? Would probably be better to list them explicitly, the current text is ambiguous.
I agree with Stephan's comment.
I agree with Stephen's comment.
I guess the name of the new registry could be chosen more meaningful, maybe IEEE Std 802.15.4 IETF IE subtype IDs...?
Section 6 correctly says that all IETF IE subtypes need to be handled identically wrt confidentiality. Doesn't that imply that we ought be conservative and encourage encryption of this IE whenever it is used? While I don't think that'd approach a MUST level requirement (and if we tried we'd likely be ignored;-) I wonder if there are any known or planned IETF IE subtypes for which we would argue for a "SHOULD encrypt" statement? If there are, then I think that'd argue that we ought also include that SHOULD here as well. If there are not, then fair enough that 2119 language is probably not appropriate (though generic encouragement to encrypt would I think still be right)