Last Call Review of draft-ietf-roll-minrank-hysteresis-of-
review-ietf-roll-minrank-hysteresis-of-genart-lc-garcia-2012-03-30-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-roll-minrank-hysteresis-of
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2012-04-05
Requested 2012-03-15
Other Reviews Genart Telechat review of - by Miguel García (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Miguel García
Review review-ietf-roll-minrank-hysteresis-of-genart-lc-garcia-2012-03-30
Posted at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg07303.html
Last updated 2012-03-30

Review
review-ietf-roll-minrank-hysteresis-of-genart-lc-garcia-2012-03-30

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>

Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-roll-minrank-hysteresis-of-07
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <miguel.a.garcia at ericsson.com>
Review Date: 2012-03-27
IETF LC End Date: 2012-04-06

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

Major issues: none

Minor issues: none

Nits/editorial comments:

- The second sentence of the Abstract reads:

  This specification describes the Minimum Rank Objective Function with
  Hysteresis (MRHOF), ...

But the title (two lines above) reads slightly different:

  The Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective Function



I suggest o always use the same term. Since the selected acronym is 


MRHOF, I would suggest to always use the title to refer to MRHOF.







- Section 1, last paragraph. The second sentence in this paragraph is 


incomplete.




- Please expand acronyms at first usage. This includes: DODAG, ETX

- Section 3.1. Towards the end of the section, the sentence reads:

   The path cost corresponding to a neighbor SHOULD be re-computed each
   time:



and then there are 3 conditions numbered from 1 to 3. It is not clear if 


the path cost should be recomputed when all of the 3 conditions are met, 


or when any of the 3 conditions are met. In other words, it is not clear 


if the 3 bullet points are an "AND" or an "OR" operation among then. 


Presumably they are an "OR". If this is the case, perhaps the sentence 


should be rephrased as:




   The path cost corresponding to a neighbor SHOULD be re-computed each
   time any of the following conditions are met:

/Miguel
--
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain