Telechat Review of draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10
review-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10-secdir-telechat-kivinen-2021-04-12-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 18) | |
Type | Telechat Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2021-04-20 | |
Requested | 2021-04-07 | |
Authors | Charles E. Perkins , S.V.R Anand , Satish Anamalamudi , Bing (Remy) Liu | |
I-D last updated | 2021-04-12 | |
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) Rtgdir Last Call review of -16 by Tony Przygienda (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Tero Kivinen |
State | Completed | |
Request | Telechat review on draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/KR64Gt_ff5w7efwDFLmBFBZdmYs | |
Reviewed revision | 10 (document currently at 18) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2021-04-12 |
review-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10-secdir-telechat-kivinen-2021-04-12-00
This is rereview of this document. Some of my comments from the previous review were not properly implemented. I.e., even when the figure changed the reserved field in section 4.3 to be 'X' instead of 'r', the text listing fields still refers to it as 'r'. Also the acronym format is not not consistent, i.e., either pick format of "long name (ACRONYM)" or "ACRONYM (long name)", and do not use both of them. Now there is still acronyms RPL, DIO, and MOP in section 1 using different format than what for example acronyms DODAG, P2P, DAO in same section.