Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc-11

Request Review of draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type Last Call Review
Team Internet of Things Directorate (iotdir)
Deadline 2019-11-29
Requested 2019-11-04
Requested by Suresh Krishnan
Authors Ana Minaburo, Laurent Toutain, Ricardo Andreasen
Draft last updated 2019-11-29
Completed reviews Iotdir Last Call review of -11 by Stephen Farrell (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -12 by Theresa Enghardt (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -12 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -12 by Joseph Touch (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Paul Wouters (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -13 by Charlie Kaufman (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -15 by Charlie Kaufman (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Stephen Farrell 
State Completed Snapshot
Review review-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc-11-iotdir-lc-farrell-2019-11-29
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 11 (document currently at 19)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2019-11-29



I noted only one issue that might need fixing:

- If two entities are using this scheme and have an agreed set of 
  rules, don't you need to say that packets that don't match any
  rule(s) should be sent unmodified?

I also noticed a couple of nits:

- Intro: "There is no risk to lock a device in a particular version
  of CoAP." I'm not fully sure what that's trying to say but a) "no
  risk" is a major claim that's not justified:-) and b) SCHC (by 
  design) does inherently risk being less effective if protocols or
  patterns of protocol usage change.  I'd say just delete the

- section 2: "SCHC C/D" is used without being defined.

- 7.2: Typo: "The Inner Plaintext contains sensible information 
  which is not necessary for proxy operation." s/sensible/sensitive/
  I guess.