Skip to main content

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

Request Review of draft-ietf-roll-admin-local-policy
Requested revision 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
I-D 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 O. Bradner (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Scott O. Bradner
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-roll-admin-local-policy by Ops Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 03)
Result Has nits
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