Early Review of draft-ietf-6lo-prefix-registration-02
review-ietf-6lo-prefix-registration-02-genart-early-romascanu-2024-06-05-00

This is an Early Review of draft-ietf-6lo-prefix-registration-02, at the
request of the WG chair, prior to the WGLC.

This document updates a number of IPv6 Neighbor Discovery and 6LoWPAN
extensions RFCs to enable a node that owns or is directly connected to a prefix
to register that prefix to neighbor routers. The registration indicates that
the registered prefix can be reached via the advertising node without a loop.
It also extends three Routing Protocols for LLNs RFCs.

The document is Ready With (a few) Issues that can be clarified during the
WGLC. As it stands, the document can go to WGLC, and these comments can be
dealt with during the WGLC process.

My comments:

1. I am not sure about this statement being in the right place in the 2.2
Requirements section

>  In addition, the terms "Extends" and "Amends" are used as per
   [I-D.kuehlewind-update-tag] section 3.

We are dealing with Requirements and referencing an I-D seems odd.

2. For clarity, please expand / explain in 2.4 the following terms: EARO, DAO,
TIO, RTO

3. With all due respect to ASCII art, Figure 1 is not clear. Is there any
difference between an 'o' and a 'z'?

4. There is an 'Extending 7400' section, but RFC 7400 is not included in the
list on the header, or mentioned in the first paragraph.

5. I appreciate the Backward Compatibility section, but I am wondering whether
there are any compatibility issues related to scalability or provisioning that
an operator or user should be aware about when deploying the newly defined
extensions. Maybe there is room for an Operational Considerations section, or
for a sub-section in the Backwards Compatibility section.