Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-roll-routing-dispatch-01

Request Review of draft-ietf-roll-routing-dispatch
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-10-19
Requested 2016-10-06
Authors Pascal Thubert , Carsten Bormann , Laurent Toutain , Robert Cragie
I-D last updated 2016-10-19
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -01 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -02 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -01 by Rich Salz (diff)
Intdir Last Call review of -01 by Dave Thaler (diff)
Intdir Last Call review of -01 by Bernie Volz (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -01 by Mahesh Jethanandani (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Francis Dupont
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-roll-routing-dispatch by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 01 (document currently at 05)
Result Ready
Completed 2016-10-19
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-roll-routing-dispatch-03.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20161025
IETF LC End Date: 20161019
IESG Telechat date: 20161027

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:
 - 1 page 3: wording:
   to much smaller values than the IPv6 maximum transmission unit (MTU)
   of 1280 bytes.
  this statement doesn't make sense without an extra word as "guaranteed"
  before "IPv6 maximum..."

 - 3.2.2 page 8 and 8 page 25: e.g. -> e.g.,

 - 4.3 page 10: please expand the first occurrence of the DODAG abbrev
  (DODAG is in the RFC-editor abbrev list but is not starred as well known.
   BTW RPL is in the same case but IMHO does not need expansion in the
   Abstract and the intro)

 - 4.3.1 page 10 figure 5: for consistency: Coalesced -> coalesced

 - 4.3.2 page 11: formally the 2 paragraphs beginning by If and Else
  should be indented (ask the RFC Editor to do that)

 - 6.3 page 21: spurious comma in [RFC6550],.

 - 9 page 25: I disagree a bit about decompression to be security neutral
  because an atatcket can use error propagation by a decompressor.
  Now if I understand well there should be a L2 security so attacks
  based on decompression are limited and anyway covered by compression
  RFC (6282)... So I leave this to the security directorate.

 - A.2 page 31: defiend -> defined

 - Authors' Addresses page 35: Please ask the RFC Editor to uniformize
  France/FRANCE case (or put FR :-).