Telechat Review of draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10
review-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10-iotdir-telechat-van-der-stok-2021-04-15-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Telechat Review
Team Internet of Things Directorate (iotdir)
Deadline 2021-04-20
Requested 2021-04-08
Requested by Éric Vyncke
Authors Satish Anamalamudi, Charles Perkins, S.V.R Anand, Bing (Remy) Liu
Draft last updated 2021-04-15
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Tero Kivinen (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -10 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -10 by Tero Kivinen (diff)
Iotdir Telechat review of -10 by Peter Van der Stok (diff)
Comments
As ROLL is really targeting constrained networks, please have a IoT review of this document before Tuesday 20th of April.
Thank you
-éric
Assignment Reviewer Peter Van der Stok 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10-iotdir-telechat-van-der-stok-2021-04-15
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-directorate/f2GUlTDX4ppY1GKjQFqS8930ZYI
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 11)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2021-04-15

Review
review-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10-iotdir-telechat-van-der-stok-2021-04-15

Review of draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10
Peter van der stok, 15 April 2021

In general, the document is well written. By looking regularly into RFC 6550, I am rather sure that I could implement the protocol.
The question remains how this draft relates to RFC 6997. When the WG decides that this draft replaces RFC 6997, then it would be good to copy some text from 6997 to this draft, because RFC 6997 is more explicit about the use of RPL parameters as specified in RFC 6550 and presents more explicit motivation.

Many thanks for this document

peter
_________________________________________________________
Some suggestions for the text follow here:
Page 14, lines 3 and 4;
OLD: ART Options and within
New: ART Options. Within
Page 14, line 9
distinguished -> generated
page 14 section 6.2.1
OLD: does not belong to the RREQ-Instance
NEW: has not joint the RREQ-Instance
Joining is used in Step 1, 2nd paragraph.
Question: what is the "best previous RREQ"?
Page 14, Step 1, 2nd paragraph
OLD: router's Rank would not exceed
NEW: router's Rank does not exceed
Page 15 end of Step 3;
Question: What is a "stale sequence number"?
Page 15, section 6.2.2
OLD:
If the OrigNode tries to reach multiple TargNodes in a single RREQ-Instance, one of the TargNodes can be an intermediate router to the others, therefore it MUST continue sending RREQ-DIO to reach other targets. 
 
NEW:
If the OrigNode tries to reach multiple TargNodes in a single RREQ-Instance, it MUST continue sending RREQ-DIO to reach other Targets because one of the TargNodes can be an intermediate router to the others.

End Page 15
OLD: but have different
NEW: with different

OLD the intersection of these list
NEW the intersection all received lists

Page 16 line 8
OLD associated with the
NEW for a given

Page 17: the terms occupied RPLInstanceID, and second RPLInstancID are difficult to parse.
Maye be use received RPLInstanceID and shifted RPLInstanceID?
Further on you use original RPLInstanceID, is that a third one?

Question: what does "shifted into another integer" mean? 
Question: who or what chooses the shift value, when is it set and into which RREP-DIO field is the shifted value set? 

Page 18 Step 2; Are multiple addresses possible in the ART option. I just understood there is only one per RPLInstanceID (shifted or not).

Page 18 Step 3, As above
Stale sequence number?