Early Review of draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac-05
review-ietf-6lo-6lobac-05-intdir-early-haberman-2016-08-15-00

I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for this draft. These comments
were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors.
Document editors and shepherds should treat these comments just like
they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve
them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received.
For more details of the INT directorate, see
<

http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html

>.

Summary

This document is clearly written and informative. I just have a few
comments/questions that would be good to clear up prior to publication.

- Section 1.3 shows a padding option, but does not sufficiently describe
when/how to use it. Is there sufficient discussion in the BACnet spec on
the use of the padding option?

- In section 3, the document says that multicast is not supported at the
link layer so IPv6 multicast packets SHOULD be sent as broadcast. If
multicast is not supported, why is the requirement to broadcast only a
"SHOULD"? What other options could be used to disseminate the IPv6
multicast packets? This also applies to section 9.

- Section 6 uses the phrase "forwardable address". Do you really mean
"globally scoped address"? If so, why not just say that since "globally
scoped" is generally acceptable? If this is changed in section 6, it
also needs to be changed in section 12.

Regards,
Brian



Attachment:


signature.asc




Description:

 OpenPGP digital signature