Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-14

Request Review of draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Telechat Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2022-12-09
Requested 2022-11-04
Requested by Éric Vyncke
Authors Yong-Geun Hong , Carles Gomez , Younghwan Choi , Abdur Rashid Sangi , Samita Chakrabarti
I-D last updated 2022-11-17
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -12 by Peter E. Yee (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -14 by Carlos J. Bernardos (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -14 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Carlos J. Bernardos
State Completed
Review review-ietf-6lo-use-cases-14-intdir-telechat-bernardos-2022-11-17
Posted at
Reviewed revision 14 (document currently at 15)
Result Ready with Nits
Completed 2022-11-17
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases. 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

The document describes the applicability of IPv6 over 6lo networks and provides
some examples of practical deployments. The document is well written and
provides a very good set of references for the interested reader to continue

I think given the nature of the document, there are not issues for INT-AREA, as
those aspects that would be indeed very relevant there are mostly tackled on
the many other documents that are referenced. I find the document quite
informative though and I enjoyed and learned quite a lot reading it.

Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as YES.

The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text improvements)
with the document:

- I would personally prefer not to have explicit references to WGs, as the
document probably will live longer that the 6lo WG (though there are examples
on the IETF for the other way around ;) ) and I think the document should not
assume that the reader is familiar with IETF WGs.

- "for the IEEE Std 802.15.4[IEEE802159].)" --> "for the IEEE Std 802.15.4