Subject: [lp-wan] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc-13: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 02:25:03 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc-13: 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-lpwan-coap-static-context-hc/

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

Thank you for the work put into this document. With the heavy load on this week
telechat and all meetings related to the cancellation of the IETF-107 in-person
meeting, I must admit that this review was not as thorough as I would hope :-(

I am also trusting the ART AD for their review of the CoAP protocol compression.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENTs and NITs.
Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==
I support Barry's COMMENT on the section 1.

-- Section 2 --
Would benefit from a clear explanation of the "Sender" and "Receiver" probably
in the terminology section.

== NITS ==
In many places, the acronyms are followed by their expansions, I recommend to
use the other way: expansion (acronym)

-- section 1 --
Fix the bullet list that appears broken in the text "one of 4 actions:..."

-- Section 3.1 --
Same as above for "applying the CDA:..."

---

From: Ana Minaburo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 12:11:00 +0100

Hello Eric,

Thank you for your inputs, we have made the modifications and they will be
included in the next version of the draft.

Ana