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 | |
Review |
review-ietf-6lo-privacy-considerations-03-intdir-early-korhonen-2016-09-26
|
|
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