Subject: [Lwip] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-lwig-crypto-sensors-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 19:30:26 -0800

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lwig-crypto-sensors-05: Yes

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-lwig-crypto-sensors/

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

I'm balloting "yes", because I think this is interesting and useful material.
But, as others have mentioned, it's confusing that this appears to be a working
group document, but it seems to be about the authors' personal design and
experimentations.

Otherwise, I just have a few editorial comments:

§2, first paragraph, third sentence: Missing article before "CoAP base
specification".

§4.1, paragraph 4: "Once both peers...": What peers? Does this use the term
"peer" for the server?

§4.1, last _word_: missing article before Igrp.

§4.2: "While this is not impossible in data object security
   solutions either, it is not the typical arrangement either."
I suspect the first "either" was not intended.

§5: "It is written in nesC programming language..." missing article before
"nesC".