Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-6lo-privacy-considerations-03
review-ietf-6lo-privacy-considerations-03-intdir-early-korhonen-2016-09-26-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-6lo-privacy-considerations
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Early Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2016-09-26
Requested 2016-09-14
Authors Dave Thaler
I-D last updated 2016-09-26
Completed reviews Genart Telechat review of -04 by Paul Kyzivat
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Benjamin Kaduk
Intdir Early review of -03 by Tatuya Jinmei (diff)
Intdir Early review of -03 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Ron Bonica
Assignment Reviewer Jouni Korhonen
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-6lo-privacy-considerations by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 04)
Result Ready
Completed 2016-09-26
review-ietf-6lo-privacy-considerations-03-intdir-early-korhonen-2016-09-26-00
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for

draft-ietf-6lo-privacy-

considerations-03

. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet
                Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat
                these comments just like they would treat comments from any
                other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other
                Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on
                the INT Directorate, see

http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html

.

Document: draft-ietf-6lo-privacy-considerations-03

Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen

Review Date: 9/22/2016

IETF LC End Date:

IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

1) Page 4 first paragraph states it takes a year to scan 26 bit of id space.
Even if the math is given in the next paragraph it is not clear what are the
assumptions to number of devices per link. I take it is one device on that link.

2) Page 5 table has "6 or ???" for NFC.. it would be good to either replace
"???" with something meaningful or explain why "???".

Regards,

 Jouni