Just one comment at the end:
On 12/15/16 4:04 PM, Jens Toftgaard Petersen wrote:
Hi Robert,
Many thanks for your review. See my comments and answers inline below.
Best regards,
Jens
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjsparks(_at_)nostrum(_dot_)com]
Sent: 28. november 2016 21:22
To: General Area Review Team <gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 6lo(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule(_dot_)all(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule-08
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
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-6lo-dect-ule-08
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 28 Nov 2016
IETF LC End Date: 02 Dec 2016
IESG Telechat date: 15 Dec 2016
Summary: Ready with nits
Nits/editorial comments:
First, forgive me, but I need to grumble a little bit:
The way this document approaches standardization makes me very uncomfortable.
The language is passive and relies on inference to the point that it risks
being vague. If this review were earlier in the document's life-cycle, I would
strongly suggest a complete restructure focusing on explicitly specifying what
the implementation is supposed to do.
But, the document has had several reviewers who didn't trip up on this point,
and the working group believes it is implementable, so I'm going to set that
aside and provide some concrete suggestions for removing some nits from the
existing text.
In document order:
1) In section 2.1 "This draft defines 6LoPAN as one of the possible protocols to
negotiate". That's not what this draft appears to do. Rather, it defines behavior once this
6LoPAN over DECT ULE has been negotiated. Some other document is defining the negotiation. I
suggest replacing the sentence with "[TS102.939-1] defines this negotiation and specifies an
Application Protocol Identifier of 0x06 for 6LowPAN. This document defines the behavior of that
Application Protocol".
[Jens]: Very good comment and suggested wording. Is implemented in revision -09
2) The "not recommended" in the last sentence of 2.3 looks like it should be a
2119 keyword (NOT RECOMMENDED). Similarly, the "shall" in the last sentence of
the first paragraph of 2.4 looks like it should be a SHALL (consider using MUST instead).
[Jens]: I agree. Is implemented in revision -09
3) At the mention of LOWPAN_IPHC in the second paragraph of 2.4, consider referencing RFC6282. It's
not clear what the sentence is really trying to convey, though. "all the requirements" is
very vague - can you point to a specific requirement list somewhere? "It is expected"
implies that you believe there's a chance that it might fail. Could the sentence be removed (you
cover this in 3.2) or be replaced with a more direct statement?
[Jens]: Agreed, is covered in section 3.2. Will be removed in revision -09
4) In the first section of 3.1 you have "The PP MUST be pageable".
Interestingly, the word "pageable" does not yet appear anywhere in the RFC
series. Please add a reference into the ETSI docs that will lead the reader to a
definition.
[Jens]: I don't think we have definition of the term we can refer to. Will
change to an explanatory wording in revision -09.
5) In the last paragraph of 3.2 (before 3.2.1), third sentence, you introduce
using the multi-link subnet approach. Please either add a reference to
RFC4903
here, or point forward to section 3.3.
[Jens]: A reference to RF4903 added in revision -09
6) In section 3.2.1, third paragraph, you say addresses are derived "similar to the
guidance of [RFC4291]. I don't believe that is sufficient. Perhaps you should say
"following the guidance in Appendix A of [RFC4291]"?
[Jens]: Yes, your suggestion is more accurate. Will be done revision -09.
7) The last paragraph of 3.3 says "The FPs operation role in such scenario are rather like
Backbone Routers (6BBR) than 6LBR, as per [I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router]." Is this trying to
_specify_ the behavior of the FP in this scenario? If not, it's unclear what the sentence is trying
to accomplish. If so, then the sentence should be "The FPs in such a scenario behave as
Backbone Routers (6BBR) as defined in [I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router]." And that reference
should be normative, rather than informative.
[Jens]: I agree the wording is bit vague, but I believe we cannot refer to work
in progress [I-D.ietf-6lo-backbone-router] in a normative way. I will
tightening the wording revision -09
You _can_ refer normatively to a work in progress (and I think it may
still be the right thing to do here). The consequence is that this
document would stay in the RFC Editor's queue in a state known as
MISSREF (for missing reference) until the referenced document was
approved for publication as an RFC. You can see examples of this at work
on https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php.