Subject: [lp-wan] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-lorawan-13: (with COMMENT)

From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 19:51:38 -0800

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lpwan-schc-over-lorawan-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-schc-over-lorawan/

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

The title, Abstract, and Introduction all use “LoRaWAN” without expansion or
explanation.  I suggest expanding it as “Long Range WAN” in all three places,
and citing [lora-alliance-spec] at that expansion in the Introduction (you dont
cite it until Section 4).

Please expand LPWAN on first use in the Introduction.

And a comment about Martin’s comment: “I found this document to be very tough
going without reading through RFC8724.” ... Well, to be fair, 8724 is a
normative reference, so isn’t that sort of expected?