[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header-04.txt
"Miguel A. Garcia" <Miguel.A.Garcia@ericsson.com> Mon, 24 October 2011 18:31 UTC
Return-Path: <miguel.a.garcia@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65BE321F8BF9; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.274
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.274 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.325, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jiVfkfHjDZua; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F3D821F8BF0; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7c26ae0000035b9-5d-4ea5af11cdb8
Received: from esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id D3.AF.13753.11FA5AE4; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:31:45 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [159.107.51.30] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.94) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.137.0; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:31:44 +0200
Message-ID: <4EA5AF0F.8090704@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:31:43 +0200
From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <Miguel.A.Garcia@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: jhui@archrock.com, jpv@cisco.com, culler@cs.berkeley.edu, vishwas@ipinfusion.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, brian haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header-04.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:31:47 -0000
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-6man-rpl-routing-header-04.txt Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <miguel.a.garcia@ericsson.com> Review Date: 2011-10-23 IETF LC End Date: 2011-10-31 Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. Major issues: none Minor issues: - Section 2 is titled "Overview". As such, I was expecting to find descriptive text that makes the reader easier to understand the technology that will be later described in detail and in a more normative way. However, this Section contains a number of normative texts already (MUSTs and MAYs), which defeats the purpose of an Overview Section. I wonder whether those MUSTs and MAYs words need to be really written there in that way, or whether the Overview section can be written in descriptive non-normative way. My recommendation: Turn all this normative text into informative. Make sure that the normative text is written elsewhere later in the document. - Section 2, second paragraph, says: Third, routers along the way MUST verify that loops do not exist with in the source route. I don't know how to digest this sentence. If I am implementing the protocol, is there something I can do to comply with the "MUST"? Or is this "MUS"T addressing the operation of the network? I think it is a good recommendation for network administrators, in which case, it should be exactly like that, a recommendation, not normative. But please clarify the intention. - Section 2, bullet points 1 and 2. Is there a reason why the "should" in the bullet point 1 is non-normative and the "SHOULD" in the second bullet point is normative? /Miguel -- Miguel A. Garcia +34-91-339-3608 Ericsson Spain
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-6man-rpl-r… Miguel A. Garcia