Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-06
review-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-06-secdir-lc-nir-2020-01-16-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2020-01-22
Requested 2020-01-08
Authors Diego Roberto Dujovne , Michael Richardson
I-D last updated 2021-05-29 (Latest revision 2020-02-21)
Completed reviews Iotdir Early review of -05 by Carles Gomez (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -06 by Yoav Nir (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -06 by Tim Evens (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -08 by Qin Wu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Yoav Nir
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/znpt-5r7hADU0qObMgV-AVay9Is
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 14)
Result Has nits
Completed 2020-01-16
review-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-06-secdir-lc-nir-2020-01-16-00
The draft is short and to the point and easy to understand.  The security
considerations (and privacy considerations!) sections are well written and
cover everything.  I'm just missing one clause.

The first paragraph reads:
   All of the contents of this Information Element are sent in the
   clear.  The containing Enhanced Beacon is not encrypted.

What I'm missing is "...and this is fine because the 6tisch-Join-Info structure
contains no sensitive information."

I'm not disputing this or asking for rigorous proof, but it you say "this is
sent in the clear", you should finish with at least a statement that says that
this is OK.