Hi Pascal, Brief responses below, [acm] tag, thanks for your reply, Al > -----Original Message----- > From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) [mailto:pthubert@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, January 6, 2020 5:39 AM > To: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; ops-dir@xxxxxxxx > Cc: last-call@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd.all@xxxxxxxx; 6lo@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd-12 > > Hello Al > > Many thanks for your review! > > Please see below: > > > This is the OPS-DIR review of -12 > > 1) "This specification introduces a new token called a cryptographic > > identifier (Crypto-ID) that is used to prove indirectly the ownership > > of an address that is being registered by means of [RFC8505]." > > during Neighbor Discovery in > > "...a 6LoWPAN Low Power Lossy > > Network (LLN), typically a stub network connected to a larger IP > > network via a Border Router called a 6LBR per [RFC6775]." > > Unsure what you expectation is here? > I removed the redefinition of LLN in the latter piece. [acm] No real expectation, I was adding background to the review... > > > > > 2) This seems like a worthwhile update to RFC8505. > > The section describing the Update aspect is helpful, but ... > > Nit: there should also a sentence in the Abstract indicating the > Update > > status. > > The scope of operation is very limited, hence no operational issues > detected. > > The first sentence of the abstract says " > This document specifies an extension to 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery (ND) > protocol defined in RFC6775 and updated in RFC8505. > " > Should we reword ? Maybe " > This document updates the 6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery (ND) protocol defined > in RFC 6775 and RFC 8505. > " > ? [acm] Yes, I think that works, it must be clear that you are Updating 8505 in this memo. There's a requirement to do this when "Updating" (somewhere). > > > > 3) The SEC-DIR review will likely be more interesting: this reviewer's > experience > > doesn't foster review of LLN in any depth. > > It is happening right now : ) > > > 4) The Doc Shepherd's form indicates that the last 4 versions benefited > from > > review by > > knowledgeable persons in the Security Area. > > Yes, that helped a lot make the SEC DIR review smoother. > > Many thanks again [acm] You're very welcome > > Pascal > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
