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 16)
Type Telechat Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2022-12-13
Requested 2022-11-04
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 Robert Sparks
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 14 (document currently at 16)
Result Ready
Completed 2022-11-17
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments
were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document
editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other review

This document is ready for publication as an Informational RFC

Thanks for addressing my Last Call comments. The new Security Considerations
text is helpful (though I would have preferred even more).

I'll point to one last potential problem spot (as a nit) that you may wish to
reconsider. See Section 3 at:

"Encryption is important if the implementation can afford it."

From the rest of the document, it's clear that Encryption is important even if
the implementation _can't_ afford it (and what does "afford it" even mean in
this context)?

Please try to find more specific text to convey what you are trying to say.