Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dhc-mac-assign-06

Request Review of draft-ietf-dhc-mac-assign
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2020-05-19
Requested 2020-05-05
Authors Bernie Volz, Tomek Mrugalski, Carlos Bernardos
Draft last updated 2020-05-11
Completed reviews Intdir Last Call review of -06 by Tatuya Jinmei (diff)
Iotdir Last Call review of -06 by Jaime Jimenez (diff)
Iotdir Last Call review of -06 by Samita Chakrabarti (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Sean Turner (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Roni Even (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Tianran Zhou (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Roni Even 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-dhc-mac-assign-06-genart-lc-even-2020-05-11
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 09)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2020-05-11


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


Document: draft-ietf-dhc-mac-assign-??
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2020-05-11
IETF LC End Date: 2020-05-19
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

The document is ready for publication as a standard track RFC with nits
Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:
1. In the terminology section I was wondering why the client is a device while the server is a software. Any reason for this distinction.

2. The server can allocate a smaller size chunk and not the requested size. The allocation policy is up to the server. Should it be required from the server to allocate the largest chunk that is closer to the requested size.