Routing Requirements for Urban Low-Power and Lossy Networks
RFC 5548
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes
(David Ward; former steering group member) Yes
(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection
I support Pasi's Discuss.
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection
I'll be a bit surprised to see this have the security and reliability to control traffic lights.
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
I support Pasi's Discuss.
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pasi Eronen; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
Also support Pasi's DISCUSS
(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection
I also support Pasi's discuss. I believe the emphasis on lightweight security mechanisms could be appropriate for sensor reporting in some cases, but I think that heavier mechanisms could be required for actuators and routers. The security considerations implies a least common denominator approach that will allow the admitted constraints of sensor components to dominate the correspondingly stronger components abilities and security requirements.