IEEE 802.15.4 Information Element for the IETF
RFC 8137
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) Yes
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
= Section 1 = "IEEE Std 802.15.4 [IEEE-802-15-4] is a standard, referred to by RFC 4944 ([RFC4944]), et al, that enables very low-cost, low-power communications." Does "et al refer" to all the documents that update RFC 4944? Would probably be better to list them explicitly, the current text is ambiguous.
(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection
I agree with Stephan's comment.
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
I agree with Stephen's comment.
(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection
I guess the name of the new registry could be chosen more meaningful, maybe IEEE Std 802.15.4 IETF IE subtype IDs...?
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
Section 6 correctly says that all IETF IE subtypes need to be handled identically wrt confidentiality. Doesn't that imply that we ought be conservative and encourage encryption of this IE whenever it is used? While I don't think that'd approach a MUST level requirement (and if we tried we'd likely be ignored;-) I wonder if there are any known or planned IETF IE subtypes for which we would argue for a "SHOULD encrypt" statement? If there are, then I think that'd argue that we ought also include that SHOULD here as well. If there are not, then fair enough that 2119 language is probably not appropriate (though generic encouragement to encrypt would I think still be right)
(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection