Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-08
review-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-08-genart-lc-palombini-2020-01-30-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 15) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2020-01-31 | |
Requested | 2020-01-17 | |
Authors | Thomas Watteyne , Pascal Thubert , Carsten Bormann | |
I-D last updated | 2020-01-30 | |
Completed reviews |
Intdir Last Call review of -04
by Dave Thaler
(diff)
Iotdir Last Call review of -04 by Ines Robles (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Derrell Piper (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -09 by Sarah Banks (diff) Tsvart Last Call review of -07 by Joerg Ott (diff) Genart Last Call review of -08 by Francesca Palombini (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Francesca Palombini |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/to625sRrMoO4G_ChBGcFNA_Q0Xk | |
Reviewed revision | 08 (document currently at 15) | |
Result | Ready w/nits | |
Completed | 2020-01-30 |
review-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-08-genart-lc-palombini-2020-01-30-00
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 treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-6lo-minimal-fragment-08 Reviewer: Francesca Palombini Review Date: 2020-01-30 IETF LC End Date: 2020-01-31 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication. However, I noticed the normative reference to an informative document, draft-ietf-lwig-6lowpan-virtual-reassembly (ref. 'LWIG-VRB'), which is problematic, since this draft is on the standard track. Major issues: - Minor issues: - Nits/editorial comments: * Last paragraph of Section 5, I suggest a minor reformulation for clarity. OLD: An associated caveat is that on a half duplex radio, if node A sends the next fragment at the same time as node B forwards the previous fragment to a node C down the path then node B will miss the next fragment. NEW: An associated caveat is that on a half duplex radio, if node A sends the next fragment at the same time as node B forwards the previous fragment to a node C down the path then node B will miss the next fragment from node A.