Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6lo-btle-13
review-ietf-6lo-btle-13-opsdir-lc-comstedt-2015-07-13-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-6lo-btle
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2015-07-07
Requested 2015-05-28
Authors Johanna Nieminen , Teemu Savolainen , Markus Isomaki , Basavaraj Patil , Zach Shelby , Carles Gomez
I-D last updated 2015-07-13
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -13 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -14 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -13 by Chris M. Lonvick (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -14 by Chris M. Lonvick (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -13 by Niclas Comstedt (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Niclas Comstedt
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-6lo-btle by Ops Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 13 (document currently at 17)
Result Has nits
Completed 2015-07-13
review-ietf-6lo-btle-13-opsdir-lc-comstedt-2015-07-13-00
Hi,

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

This document is for the Standards Track.

This document defines how IPv6 is transported over Low Energi Bluetooth
leveraging 6LoWPAN techniques for 802.15.4.

I have no real feedback. The document is well written and makes sense to me.
The compression details are a bit outside of my experience so didn’t get into
all the details there. There are no real nits (one single referenced draft has
a newer version) and my only semantical small change would be:

- 3.2.4 first paragraph, remove “in this document”. Header compression as
defined … … is REQUIRED as the basis … … Those two first sentences are a little
repetitive which adds to it

- 3.3, should this just be moved up under 3.2.1 or something? Its only
referenced there unless I’m missing something and doesn’t need the context of
what comes after.

/nco