I only found 1 real "issue" in reading this document, and a few smaller nits, described below.  None of these comments are specifically related to IoTDIR type of concerns, and it doesn't seem like the protocol would be intended for use in IoT.

Issues:

1) The placement of TIPS relative to other ALTO standards is unclear.  This became evident to me on page 4, reading the bottom paragraph with "Despite the benefits, however, ...".  Is the gist of this paragraph supposed to be that the WG does not think that TIPS should totally replace ALTO/SSE?  It's not clear to me what the recommendation or applicability statement for these is in practical terms.  The WG should convey more clearly what it believes implemenentations and deployments should be using, under what circumstances.  If both protocols are maintained as standards track, then it should be clearly stated why that needs to be the case and that this does not obsolete ALTO/SSE.  It seems to be created as another option, with unclear guidance provided to implementers about what to do.

Nits:

1) page 4
from
"no capability it transmits incremental"
to
"no capability to transmit incremental"

2) I don't know if this is typical for other ALTO documents, but the usage of the term "transport protocol" in the first paragraph of section 1 is not consistent with the Internet architecture where "transport protocols" are TCP, UDP, SCTP, etc., nor is it "transport" in the sense of MPLS, etc.   I would suggest using the alternative term "transfer" to be less jarring.  Of course, if this is already the standard terminology for ALTO that the IETF has accepted, then this comment can be ignored.

3) In the section 5.4 example, should "my-networkmap" in some of the "uses" values by "my-network-map" that was defined at the top?