Telechat Review of draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header-
review-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header-genart-telechat-garcia-2012-01-12-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2011-11-29
Requested 2011-11-29
Other Reviews Genart Telechat review of - by Miguel García (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of - by Chris Lonvick (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Miguel García
Review review-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header-genart-telechat-garcia-2012-01-12
Posted at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg06832.html
Draft last updated 2012-01-12
Review completed: 2012-01-12

Review
review-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header-genart-telechat-garcia-2012-01-12

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>

Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header-04.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <miguel.a.garcia at ericsson.com>
Review Date: 2011-10-23
IETF LC End Date: 2011-10-31




Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that 


should be fixed before publication.





Major issues: none

Minor issues:



- Section 2 is titled "Overview". As such, I was expecting to find 


descriptive text that makes the reader easier to understand the 


technology that will be later described in detail and in a more normative 


way. However, this Section contains a number of normative texts already 


(MUSTs and MAYs), which defeats the purpose of an Overview Section. I 


wonder whether those MUSTs and MAYs words need to be really written there 


in that way, or whether the Overview section can be written in 


descriptive non-normative way.






My recommendation: Turn all this normative text into informative. Make 


sure that the normative text is written elsewhere later in the document.




- Section 2, second paragraph, says:

   Third, routers along the way MUST verify that loops do not exist with
   in the source route.



I don't know how to digest this sentence. If I am implementing the 


protocol, is there something I can do to comply with the "MUST"? Or is 


this "MUS"T addressing the operation of the network? I think it is a good 


recommendation for network administrators, in which case, it should be 


exactly like that, a recommendation, not normative. But please clarify 


the intention.






- Section 2, bullet points 1 and 2. Is there a reason why the "should" in 


the bullet point 1 is non-normative and the "SHOULD" in the second bullet 


point is normative?




/Miguel


--
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain