Early Review of draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac-05
review-ietf-6lo-6lobac-05-intdir-early-haberman-2016-08-15-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
| Type | Early Review | |
| Team | Internet Area Directorate (intdir) | |
| Deadline | 2016-08-15 | |
| Requested | 2016-08-08 | |
| Draft last updated | 2016-08-15 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Orit Levin
(diff)
Intdir Early review of -05 by Tim Chown (diff) Intdir Early review of -05 by Brian Haberman (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Mahesh Jethanandani (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Brian Haberman |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-6lo-6lobac-05-intdir-early-haberman-2016-08-15 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 05 (document currently at 08) | |
| Review result | Ready | |
| Review completed: | 2016-08-15 |
Review
review-ietf-6lo-6lobac-05-intdir-early-haberman-2016-08-15
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for this draft. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherds 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 of the INT directorate, see < http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html >. Summary This document is clearly written and informative. I just have a few comments/questions that would be good to clear up prior to publication. - Section 1.3 shows a padding option, but does not sufficiently describe when/how to use it. Is there sufficient discussion in the BACnet spec on the use of the padding option? - In section 3, the document says that multicast is not supported at the link layer so IPv6 multicast packets SHOULD be sent as broadcast. If multicast is not supported, why is the requirement to broadcast only a "SHOULD"? What other options could be used to disseminate the IPv6 multicast packets? This also applies to section 9. - Section 6 uses the phrase "forwardable address". Do you really mean "globally scoped address"? If so, why not just say that since "globally scoped" is generally acceptable? If this is changed in section 6, it also needs to be changed in section 12. Regards, Brian Attachment: signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature