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 Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2016-10-19
Requested 2016-10-14
Authors Pascal Thubert , Carsten Bormann , Laurent Toutain , Robert Cragie
I-D last updated 2016-12-06
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 Bernie Volz
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-roll-routing-dispatch by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 01 (document currently at 05)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2016-12-06

I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for
draft-ietf-roll-routing-dispatch-01. These comments were written primarily for
the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s)
should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other
IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that
have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see

This document seems to have required reading many other documents about 6LoWPAN
which sadly I did not have time to do. So, my comment may reflect a narrow
understanding of the technology. Most of my comments are fairly minor in nature
to clean up the document (which the RFC-Editor would no doubt do a far better
job at then my limited comments).

I did NOT find anything that would be show stopper for this document.

1.       Please check the use of LOWPAN_IPHC and LoWPAN_IPHC. Probably they
should all be the same case? And there is a mix of underscore and hyphen
(LOWPAN-IPHC)? Should one format be used throughout? Also, in section 7 just
"IPHC" is used.

2.        Standardize the way in which RFC titles are referenced. Section 1
uses just the title, the title in square brackets and another part of the
document uses single quotes around the name.

3.       Look at #RFC6554 - that likely was meant to be a reference to the RFC?

4.       In Figure 2, might be worth moving the "RPL SRH" text up below the
"plus" instead of leaving a space between them?

5.       In Section 3.2.1, first paragraph, the opening parenthesis is never
closed. And, might be best to add "described in" before the Section 3.1

6.       In section 3.2.2, there is a closing parenthesis in the first
paragraph, but no matching opening parenthesis?

7.       In section 3.2.2, HbH is used but is not defined nor was it defined in
the 3 RFCs referenced in the Terminology section. It is used twice in the
document. Either define in terminology, add to first use, or just spell out
"hop by hop"?

8.       In section 3.2.2, reference to Section 3.2.1 might be "(see Section
3.2.1)"? Similar issue for reference to section 5.3.

9.       In section 3.2.2, last paragraph, there is "it is REQUIRED that the in
the"? This seems to be malformed? I think the "the" after that should be

10.   Section 4, the last paragraph should probably start with "For", not
"for"? And, I think a comma should be a period (after "form of 6LoRH") and an
extra that should be removed (that that)?

11.   Section 4.3, "that as a long" should probably be "that has a long"?

12.   Section 4.3, I think it should be compressed - "in order to reconstruct
the compressed"?

13.   Section 4.3, cleanup reference to "section section 4.3.1".

14.   Section 4.3.2, "described in more details" should probably just be
"described in more detail"?

15.   Section 5.1, it might be useful to indicate here that "Hop1" ... are the
(possibly) compressed addresses? This field is not really defined.

16.   Section 5.1, "It results that" is a bit odd? Perhaps just say "This means
that all"? Similar issue in Section 5.2.3, though I don't think the same fix
would work there?

17.   Section 5.4, remove that in "used as Compression Reference is that the
address". And the rest of that sentence is also a bit odd; not really sure what
it is trying to convey?

18.   Section 5.5, adding a reference to Appendix A.3 would be really useful
here; that example makes this much easier to understand (add to end of the
section - "For an example, see Appendix A.3."?

19.   Section 6, "whereas the RPI is usually (and quiet illegally) omitted". It
seems odd to use "usually" and "illegally"? Was this supposed to be legally?
And later in same paragraph, "To impact of placing"? I think this was supposed
to be "To impact the placing"?

20.   In section 9, 2nd paragraph, there is an opening parenthesis that is
never closed.

21.   In section 10.2, the <- and -> and ## are a bit odd. Can these be changed
into just normal text? Or is there a reason for these special markers?

That's it. The technical issues, as best I could understand them, seem to be in
good shape.

-          Bernie Volz