Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-03
review-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-03-genart-lc-carpenter-2015-08-01-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 05) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2015-08-11 | |
| Requested | 2015-07-30 | |
| Authors | Guy Almes , Sunil Kalidindi , Matthew J. Zekauskas , Al Morton | |
| I-D last updated | 2015-08-01 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -03
by Brian E. Carpenter
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Warren "Ace" Kumari (diff) Opsdir Telechat review of -05 by Al Morton |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Brian E. Carpenter |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 05) | |
| Result | Ready w/issues | |
| Completed | 2015-08-01 |
review-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-03-genart-lc-carpenter-2015-08-01-00
I am the assigned 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 Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-03.txt Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2015-07-31 IETF LC End Date: 2015-08-11 IESG Telechat date: Summary: Ready with issues -------- Major issue: ------------ The draft does not mention the IP version. RFC 2330 states that it applies to IPv4 only (section 15) and uses terminology that only applies to IPv4. At the very minimum, the current draft needs to state its limited applicability. I would be much happier if it explained how it applies to IPv6. Minor issues: ------------- In sections 3.6 and 3.8.1 there are passing references to the diffserv code point. I think that the ECN bits should be mentioned too: their setting could also affect router processing time. ECN is a bit tricky as it might change on the fly. Along the same lines, should Router Alert be mentioned? And for IPv6 applicability, any hop-by-hop options should certainly be mentioned.