Subject: [6tisch] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-20: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 19:08:05 -0800

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6tisch-minimal-20: 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/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- Substantive Comments

-- Section 4, 2nd paragraph, "A node MAY use different values": Is that
intended to weaken the RECOMMENDED in the previous sentence? (If not,
then is the MAY needed at all?)

-- 4.5.1, first 3 paragraphs: Why are the SHOULDs not MUSTs? Can you
articulate why it might be reasonable to make other choices?

-- 4.5.2, 3rd paragraph, "It MAY be necessary..."
That seems like a statement of fact. Please consider non-2119 language.

--- 4th paragraph: It's not clear to me if the MUST in "MUST be sent as
per the 802.15.4 specification..." is constraining options from that
specification, or just referring to requirements that exists in that
specification. If the latter, please consider descriptive rather than
normative language. (e.g. "The 802.15.4 specification requires...."

-- 6.1, 3rd paragraph: Why is the SHOULD not a MUST? When might it make
sense not to follow those rules?

- Editorial Comments

-- Abstract: Please expand 6TICH on first mention