IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6lo-prefix-registration-10
review-ietf-6lo-prefix-registration-10-rtgdir-lc-peng-2025-04-25-00

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-6lo-prefix-registration-10
Reviewer: Shuping Peng
Review Date: 25 April 2025
IETF LC End Date: 30 April 2025
Intended Status: Standards

Summary:
I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved
before publication.

Comments:
Overall this draft is well-written.

Major Issues:

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

2.4 New terms

Merge/merging

"merging" is not shown in any other place within the draft. Maybe it as a new
term is not needed here?

3.1

1) Figure 1 is still not very clear although I noticed that the authors had
updated it in the latest version. Instead of using a illustrative diagram, I
wonder whether a diagram with the relevant elements named in this draft and the
connections in-between would be much clearer.

2) 'z' and '|' meant different types of connections? '|' is not explained.

3) "Access Point" in this figure is not mentioned anywhere in this subsection.

4) The caption of Figure 1 is "Wireless Mesh". How about "RPL-Based Route-Over
LLN"?

5.

"
- to be confirmed by IANA

- and updated by RFC Editor if needed.

"
Would this part be better to be marked as "to be deleted before publication"?
Since this is a Last call review, I mentioned about this.

"
New Option Field:

X  1-bit flag: "Registration for prefixes Supported"
"
Should this 'X' be 'F'?

Nits:

4.
s/This specification Amends/This specification amends

6.
s/This specification Extends/This specification extends

7.
s/it SHOULD register all those prefixes with on all interfaces from which it
might be needed to relay traffic to that prefix./it SHOULD register all those
prefixes on all interfaces from which it might be needed to relay traffic to
that prefix.

10.
s/This specification Extends/This specification extends

11.
s/if the values of the ROVR they use is known in advance/if the values of the
ROVR they use are known in advance