Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-14: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-6lo-use-cases-14 CC @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points, and some nits. Special thanks to Shwetha Bhandari for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *but* the justification of the intended status is missing. Other thanks to Carlos Bernardos, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-6lo-use-cases-14-intdir-telechat-bernardos-2022-11-17/ and I have seen Yong-Geun's reply. I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric ## COMMENTS ### Abstract The mix of acronyms (e.g., "MS/TP") and standards (e.g., IEEE or ITU) or expanded names (e.g., "Bluetooth Low Energy") in the abstract is a little weird. Suggest to expand the acronyms. ### Section 2.5 `safe two-way interactions` what is meant by "safe" in this context ? Should "secure" be used ? Also puzzling is "two-way" as it is not mentioned in other sub-sections. What makes NFC unique here ? Is it more because it is only a 2 party link ? ### Section 2.6 `This standard addresses the requirements with high data rates such as Internet, HDTV, audio, gaming.` s/Internet/Internet access/ ? What does "OFDM" mean ? ### Section 2.7 "BLE" was not expanded before The "Usage" row is very specific and not explained, e.g., I wonder whether NFC is only used in health care. ### Section 3 Should there be a reference about "multicast being harmful" ? Please expand/explain "ESC". ### Section 4 Should the section title better reflects the actual content ? E.g., "6LowPAN Usages" The difference between sections 4 and 5 is also unclear, or is the latter an explanation of section 2.7 ? If so, the flow looks weird (suggest to move section 2.7 inn section 5). ### Section 4.1 This section has a marketing twist that is unusual in IETF drafts. ### Section 4.3 Should there be a mention of the work done in the SNAC WG ? ## NITS ### Section 2.6 "AMI' acronym is defined at least 3 times in the document. Suggest to expand it only once ### Section 5.6 A lot of acronyms are defined and either never used or used only once. Please consider not defining those acronyms and use the full text. ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
