Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-06
review-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-06-genart-lc-housley-2016-12-01-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 07) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2016-12-08 | |
Requested | 2016-11-17 | |
Authors | Samita Chakrabarti , Gabriel Montenegro , Ralph Droms , james woodyatt | |
I-D last updated | 2016-12-01 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -06
by Russ Housley
(diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Rick Casarez (diff) Genart Telechat review of -07 by Russ Housley |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Russ Housley |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 06 (document currently at 07) | |
Result | Almost ready | |
Completed | 2016-12-01 |
review-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-06-genart-lc-housley-2016-12-01-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. For more information, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-06 Reviewer: Russ Housley Review Date: 2016-11-23 IETF LC End Date: 2016-12-08 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Almost Ready Major Concerns: None Minor Concerns In Section 3, it says: ... The values are from 0 to 255. Values 0 and 255 are reserved for future use. These values are assigned by IANA. ... The use of "these values" is ambiguous. I think that you mean the values from 1 to 254, but based on the placement of this sentence, it could mean 0 and 255. Please reword to be very clear. In Section 3.1, it says: ... The closer to the end of the packet are the EET's, the higher chance there is that a legacy node will recognize and successfully process some dispatch type [RFC4944] before the EET and then ignore the EET instead of dropping the entire packet. I cannot figure out the first part of the sentence. After reading it several times, I think the sentence it trying to say that placing an EET toward the front of the packet has a greater probability of causing the packet to be dropped than placing the same EET later in the packet. Please reword. In Section 4, it says: [RFC5226] section 4.1 also indicates that "Specification Required" implies a Designated Expert review of the public specification requesting registration of the ESC Extension Type values. s/implies/calls for/ Nits The first paragraph of the Introduction has two sentences that begin with "However". I think some minor rewording would make the intent more clear to all readers. The Introduction says: ... However, in recent years with 6lowpan deployments, implementations and standards organizations have started using the ESC extension bytes and co-ordination between the respective organizations and IETF/IANA is needed. First: s/co-ordination/coordination/ Second: I am glad that we are seeing deployment. That said, deployment itself is not a reason for coordination. Rather, it seems that the experience has highlighted the need for an updated IANA registration policy. In Section 3: s/Extended Dispatch Payload(EDP)/Extended Dispatch Payload(EDP)/ In Section 4: s/IANA section/IANA Considerations section/