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 rev. 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
Other Reviews Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Warren Kumari (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -05 by Al Morton
Review State Completed
Reviewer Brian Carpenter
Review review-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-03-genart-lc-carpenter-2015-08-01
Posted at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg12001.html
Reviewed rev. 03 (document currently at 05)
Review result Ready with Issues
Draft last updated 2015-08-01
Review completed: 2015-08-01

Review
review-ietf-ippm-2679-bis-03-genart-lc-carpenter-2015-08-01

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.