Early Review of draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-03
review-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-03-intdir-early-jinmei-2017-01-06-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
Type | Early Review | |
Team | Internet Area Directorate (intdir) | |
Deadline | 2017-01-19 | |
Requested | 2017-01-04 | |
Requested by | Suresh Krishnan | |
Authors | Charles E. Perkins , Vijay Devarapalli | |
I-D last updated | 2017-01-06 | |
Completed reviews |
Intdir Early review of -03
by Tatuya Jinmei
(diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Linda Dunbar (diff) Genart Last Call review of -04 by Dale R. Worley (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Joseph A. Salowey (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Tatuya Jinmei |
State | Completed | |
Request | Early review on draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids by Internet Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 08) | |
Result | Ready w/nits | |
Completed | 2017-01-06 |
review-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-03-intdir-early-jinmei-2017-01-06-00
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html. I've reviewed the 03 version of the draft. I didn't find anything obviously wrong/incorrect, and it's generally well-written. So I think it's basically ready for ship. But I'd have to note that I'm not familiar with many of the lower-layer technologies referenced in the draft, so my review and conclusion are somewhat superficial. I found some minor points. The authors may want to address them: - Section 4.1: I guess the MNID is generally supposed to be unique (at least in the realm the ID is used), but not all IPv6 addresses are guaranteed to be unique (a link-local or unspecified address is an obvious example, an ULA may also be inappropriate depending on the usage context). It may be better to note the fact, and you may also want to impose some restrictions on the type of address that can be used as an MNID. - Section 4.5 2000, modulo 2^32. Since the link-layer address can be of variable length [RFC2464], the DUID-LLT is of variable length. I don't understand why RFC2464 is referenced in this context. This RFC is about IPv6 over Ethernet, and assumes a fixed (6 bytes) length of hardware address. - Section 4.9: s/is (GRAI)/(GRAI)/ The Global Returnable Asset Identifier is (GRAI) is defined by the