IEEE 802.15.4 Information Element for the IETF
RFC 8137

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

Suresh Krishnan Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Comment (2017-03-01)
No email
send info
I agree with Stephan's comment.

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Comment (2017-02-28 for -05)
No email
send info
= 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.

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2017-02-27 for -05)
No email
send info
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)

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Mirja K├╝hlewind No Objection

Comment (2017-02-27 for -05)
No email
send info
I guess the name of the new registry could be chosen more meaningful, maybe IEEE Std 802.15.4 IETF IE subtype IDs...?

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

Alexey Melnikov No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2017-03-01)
No email
send info
I agree with Stephen's comment.