Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security-13: Discuss
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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I have some issues with the references here, which should be resolvable simply by making some normative. RFC 8505 provides terminology as well as neighbor discovery (in Sections 4.2 and 6), so it seems to me that it should be a normative reference. As draft-ietf-6tisch-architecture is used for both necessary terminology and concepts, I can’t see how it isn’t normative. I did find that I had to check it during my review. In Section 5: In an operational 6TiSCH network, all frames MUST use link-layer frame security [RFC8180]. This would seem to be a MUST referring to 8180, making that a normative reference as well. But possibly this might not really be a MUST imposed here, and is instead citing a requirement from elsewhere. In that case, I would simply remove the word “MUST”, so it is stating a fact, rather than a new requirement. You might similarly consider the subsequent sentence. In any case, I do wonder whether 7554 and 8180 should be normative. _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list 6tisch@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
