Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-46
review-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-46-genart-lc-even-2019-06-16-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 52)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-06-26
Requested 2019-06-12
Authors Nabil Benamar, Jerome Haerri, Jong-Hyouk Lee, Thierry Ernst, Thierry Ernst
Draft last updated 2019-06-16
Completed reviews Intdir Early review of -34 by Pascal Thubert (diff)
Iotdir Early review of -34 by Pascal Thubert (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -46 by Roni Even (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -46 by Joerg Ott (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -47 by Roni Even (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Roni Even
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-46-genart-lc-even-2019-06-16
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/JBgupfXEwrVztX2INcKMVPs47d0
Reviewed rev. 46 (document currently at 52)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2019-06-16

Review
review-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-46-genart-lc-even-2019-06-16

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-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-??
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2019-06-16
IETF LC End Date: 2019-06-26
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: 
The document is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC

Major issues:

Minor issues:

1. Section 4.2  says "IP packets MUST be transmitted over 802.11-OCB media as QoS Data" while appendix F say "The STA may send data frames of subtype Data, Null, QoS Data, and
      QoS Null.".  

2. In section 5.2 "The policy dictating when the MAC address is changed on the 802.11-OCB interface is to-be-determined.". Reading the next sentence it looks to me that this is needed as part of the solution and should not be left for the unknown future.

3. In Appendix I 4th paragraph " However, this does not apply if TBD TBD TBD. " . What are the TBDs?



Nits/editorial comments:
1. In appendix I last paragraph "Support of RFC 8505 is may be implemented on OCB." should be "Support of RFC 8505 may be implemented on OCB."
2. In Appendix I "OCB nodes that support RFC 8505 would support the 6LN operation in order to act as a host".  I think that instead of "would" it should be "should"  also if this is a recommendation why not have this paragraph not in an appendix with "MAY" and "SHOULD"