Barry Leiba via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
I moved all three references to normative.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list 6tisch@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
