Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-security-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/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/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for addressing my discuss points and also other editorial comments! Also great that you clarified/introduced COJP_MAX_JOIN_ATTEMPTS; I think that also a really good change! ----------------- I only leave this old comment in here because it wasn't further discussed: I'm putting this one question in the comments section because there is no concern that it does not work as specified but I wonder about the design of the Parameter Update Response Message. Given the Parameter Update Message is a confirmable CoAP message that is transmitted reliable and the content of the Parameter Update Response Message is empty, why do you need to send the Parameter Update Response Message at all? _______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list 6tisch@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
