Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol-10
review-ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol-10-genart-lc-carpenter-2018-03-10-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-03-26
Requested 2018-02-23
Authors Qin Wang , Xavier Vilajosana , Thomas Watteyne
I-D last updated 2018-11-04 (Latest revision 2018-06-20)
Completed reviews Iotdir Early review of -09 by Alexander Pelov (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Brian E. Carpenter (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -10 by Brian E. Carpenter (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Brian E. Carpenter
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 10 (document currently at 12)
Result Ready
Completed 2018-03-10
review-ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol-10-genart-lc-carpenter-2018-03-10-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-6tisch-6top-protocol-10
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2018-03-10
IETF LC End Date: 2018-03-26
IESG Telechat date: 2018-04-05

Summary: Ready

Comment: 

Most of my previous comments have been fixed, thanks. I still disagree
with the authors on one point, but not enough to delay the draft:

In section 3.1.1 "2-step 6P Transaction" there seems to be a rare race condition
if A's timeout expires while B's Response is in flight. This will be detected
later as an inconsistency (section 3.4.6.2). The authors don't think it's necessary
to mention this in 3.1.1. IMHO it would be useful to mention. (Similarly for
section 3.1.2, 3-step transaction.)