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 rev. no specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2020-01-22
Requested 2020-01-08
Authors Diego Dujovne, Michael Richardson
Draft last updated 2020-01-16
Completed reviews Iotdir Early review of -05 by Carles Gomez (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Yoav Nir (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Tim Evens (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Qin Wu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Yoav Nir
State Completed
Review review-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-06-secdir-lc-nir-2020-01-16
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/znpt-5r7hADU0qObMgV-AVay9Is
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 12)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2020-01-16

Review
review-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-06-secdir-lc-nir-2020-01-16

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.