Skip to main content

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