Last Call Review of draft-ietf-roll-admin-local-policy-02

Request Review of draft-ietf-roll-admin-local-policy
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2014-12-24
Requested 2015-02-05
Authors Peter Van der Stok, Robert Cragie
Draft last updated 2015-02-05
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Steve Hanna (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Scott Bradner (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Scott Bradner 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-roll-admin-local-policy-02-opsdir-lc-bradner-2015-02-05
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 03)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2015-02-05


I reviewed draft-ietf-roll-admin-local-policy-02 as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the operational area directors.   Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

I do not see any specific operational issues with this ID but the following are some suggestions to make the document clearer

abstract & introduction:  the ID talks about MPL but never defines the term - would seem to be a logical thing to do - if MPL is defined in an RFC it would be good to say so here

it would be nice to have an overall descriptionsave the reader from having to read between the lines

sec 2.2 - for the other link layers you say "IPv   For the sake of symmetry it would be good to say

sec 3.1 - MPL_TO - expected to be received? or expected to be sent - be clear

sec 3.2 - what does "associated with themean something else please say what

I do not see where the MPL option is defined (e.g. a pointer to a RFC which defines it)

I also do not see where the TRICKLE algorithm is defined or described