Last Call Review of draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05
review-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05-genart-lc-holmberg-2013-11-24-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-10-24
Requested 2013-10-17
Other Reviews Genart Last Call review of -07 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Tero Kivinen (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -09 by Benoît Claise (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Christer Holmberg
Review review-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05-genart-lc-holmberg-2013-11-24
Posted at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg09332.html
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 12)
Review result Almost Ready
Draft last updated 2013-11-24
Review completed: 2013-11-24

Review
review-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05-genart-lc-holmberg-2013-11-24






I am the assigned 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>




 




Document:                         draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-05




 




Reviewer:                           Christer Holmberg




 




Review Date:                     24 November 2013




 




IETF LC End Date:             24 October 2013




 




IETF Telechat Date:         N/A




 




Summary:  The document is well written, but there are some minor editorial nits that the authors may want to consider addressing before publication.




 




Major Issues: None




 




Minor Issues: None




 




Editorial nits:




 




Section 1:




------------




 




Q_1_1:




 




I assume "LLN" stands for "Low power and Lossy Networks", but there is no extension anywhere. Please insert "Low power and Lossy Networks (LLN)" on first occurance.




 




 




Section 3:




------------




 




Q_3_1:




 




In a few places the text says "this protocol". I would suggest to replace that with "MPL".




 




 




Section 4:




-----------




 




Q_4_1:




 




In section 4, I would suggest to add a reference to section 4.1 after "within an MPL Domain".




 




Yes, EVEN if "MPL Domain" is defined in the following section :)




 




 




Q_4_2:




 




I would suggest to add something in front of "Overview" in the subject of section 4.3. Overview of what? :)




 




 




Section 5:




------------




 




In section 5.5, there is text saying:




 




    "Following [RFC6206], it is RECOMMENDED that all MPL Forwarders use


       the same values for the Trickle Parameters above for a given MPL


       Domain."




 




It is a little unclear to me what is "followed". RFC 6206 does not say anything about MPL Forwardeds and MPL Domain. It talks about the trickle algorithm.




 




So, you need to say what is recommended in 6206, and how that applies to MPL.




 




It may be obvious to people involved in this work, but as an outsider I get a little confused :)




 




 




Section 13:




-------------




 




Q_13_1:




 




I would suggest to not use roman numbers.




 




 




Regards,




 




Christer