Early Review of draft-ietf-6lo-prefix-registration-02
review-ietf-6lo-prefix-registration-02-intdir-early-thaler-2024-06-10-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-6lo-prefix-registration-02 |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | 02 (document currently at 06) | |
Type | Early Review | |
Team | Internet Area Directorate (intdir) | |
Deadline | 2024-06-11 | |
Requested | 2024-05-21 | |
Requested by | Carles Gomez | |
Authors | Pascal Thubert | |
I-D last updated | 2024-06-10 | |
Completed reviews |
Intdir Early review of -02
by Dave Thaler
(diff)
Genart Early review of -02 by Dan Romascanu (diff) |
|
Comments |
The document appears to be relatively mature. Therefore, it may benefit from an early review from crucial directorates in the current stage, before WGLC. Many thanks in advance. |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Dave Thaler |
State | Completed | |
Request | Early review on draft-ietf-6lo-prefix-registration by Internet Area Directorate Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/9VJm_lYQvtrtfvTWr_SpxjJHGRo | |
Reviewed revision | 02 (document currently at 06) | |
Result | On the right track | |
Completed | 2024-06-10 |
review-ietf-6lo-prefix-registration-02-intdir-early-thaler-2024-06-10-00
A PDF with my comments inline is on my OneDrive share at: https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=DC2B364F3F06FEA8&id=DC2B364F3F06FEA8%21522413&parId=DC2B364F3F06FEA8%21522414&o=OneUp Summary: * Overall the document is well written and readable * Section 2.3 has a nice list of acronyms but many acronyms are in the document that are not listed in that section * Many typos and grammatical errors exist, as noted throughout my marked up copy * It is unclear whether a prefix can be a multicast prefix or not. For example, in Table 1 in the discussion of updating RFC 8505, the table has separate values for unicast, anycast, and multicast, but only one value for prefix. * There are a number of uses of "should" that would be better as "SHOULD" or "MUST" depending on the intent. * Section 7.3's use of a 112 bit prefix is confusing given that the field length is 120 bits not 112 bits. Where does the number 112 come from? * Section 7.4 talks about the case where "it determined that the 6LBR is legacy and does not support this specification" but it does not explain how a 6LR can determine this. Elaborate. * draft-ietf-6lo-multicast-registration is used normatively so should be a Normative, not Informative, reference