Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6lo-backbone-router-13
review-ietf-6lo-backbone-router-13-iotdir-lc-barthel-2020-01-30-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-6lo-backbone-router
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 20)
Type Last Call Review
Team Internet of Things Directorate (iotdir)
Deadline 2020-01-31
Requested 2019-11-04
Requested by Suresh Krishnan
Authors Pascal Thubert, Charles Perkins, Eric Levy-Abegnoli
Draft last updated 2020-01-30
Completed reviews Iotdir Last Call review of -13 by Dominique Barthel (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -14 by Elwyn Davies (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -13 by Kyle Rose (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dominique Barthel
State Completed
Review review-ietf-6lo-backbone-router-13-iotdir-lc-barthel-2020-01-30
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iot-directorate/KOevRWbaAb8zBLbZTxLi-PUo2eM
Reviewed rev. 13 (document currently at 20)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2020-01-30

Review
review-ietf-6lo-backbone-router-13-iotdir-lc-barthel-2020-01-30

Thanks to the authors for this work.
I think this document is ready, with a few nits as described below.
I found it clear, including comprehensive introduction and reference sections.
Here are a few comments/questions, followed by a list of merely editorial nits.
Dominique

# Comments/Questions:
Picture 1., which gives a global view of the architecture we are talking about, should be referenced as soon as end of Intro (specifically, together with “This specification defines the 6BBR as a Routing Registrar …”.

3. Overview:
Picture 1 shows one 6BBR per LLN. Can an LLN operate with multiple 6BBRs, to avoid single point of failure?

“The combined Binding Tables of all the 6BBRs on a backbone form a distributed database of 6LNs that reside in the LLNs or on the IPv6 Backbone.”
From the definition of 6LN and from Figure 1., it had not occurred to me that a 6LN could reside on the Backbone. Can you clear out this doubt?

“The proxy-ND operation can co-exist with IPv6 ND over the Backbone.”
I seems to me that IPv6 ND will happen on the Backbone no matter what the 6BBR does. Do you mean “The proxy-ND operation of the 6BBR can co-exist with the 6BBR bridging IPv6 ND between the Backbone and the LLN.”?

“The 6BBR may co-exist with a proprietary snooping or …“. My understanding of the 6BBR is that is is a box containing a set of functions. Which function of the 6BBR is specifically being referenced here?

3.2 Access Link
Figure 2 has two arrows pointing to nowhere. What is the information being conveyed by this representation? multicast? Another arrow has the (multicast) annotation but does not have the same graphical representation.

3.3 Route-Over Mesh
I suggest to add a picture showing the LLN mesh structure, with 6LNs, 6LRs and a 6LBR. This would ease the reading of the text. I’m sure you can rip one such picture off of another draft.
BTW, can there be multiple 6LBRs for one LLN, much like multiple DAG roots for RPL. If yes, this needs to be mentionned, and maybe doarn in the picture.

Figure 3. Same comment about arrows pointing to nowhere (a 3 arrows bunch, in this picture, as opposed to 2, in the previous picture).

3.4
“Addresses in a LLN … must be registered … “. Is the use of lowercase “must” intended? 
“Over the LLN, Binding Table management is as follows:”
Sorry to sound stupid, but the list of actions does not include the initial registration.
Likewise, the transitions between the Tentative, Reachable or Stale states are not described fully, left to the reader to imagine.
The tone of voice of the Binding Table management is narrative. Why is RFC2119 language not used?
After reading section 9, it occurred to me that this description might just be a preview of section 9. If true, please state this explicitely and add a forward reference.

5
“If this registration is”. Not sure what “this” refers to. Was this piece of text moved around?

7.
“Global including Unique Local addresses”
Why “including”? Aren’t they disjoint ranges?

9.
How does Section 9 “Creating and Maintaining a Binding” articulate with Section 3.4 “The Binding Table”? Is 3.4 just a preview (hence the narrative style)? In which case, a forward reference from 3.4 to 9 would be useful.
 
9.2
“An NS(DAD) with no EARO or with an EARO that indicates a duplicate If the Registration Lifetime is of a long duration, …”
Cut&Paste error?


# Nits:
- “In practice, IPv6 addresses very rarely conflict because of the entropy of the 64-bit Interface IDs, not because address duplications are detected and resolved.” -> “In practice, the fact that IPv6 addresses very rarely conflict is mostly attributable to the entropy of the 64-bit Interface IDs, not to the address duplicate detection and resolution mechanisms”. 
- inconsistent use of “broadcasted” versus “broadcast”
- 1. Intro : “that provide proxy services” -> “provides”
- 2.2 Bridging proxy : “6BR” -> “6BBR”
- 3 Overview: “Figure 1 illustrates backbone link” -> “Figure 1 illustrates a backbone link”
- 3 Overview: “In the case, the co-existing function” -> “Any such co-existing function”
- 3 Overview: “Registering Node” is a term defined in RFC8505. However, “registering node” is also found in this document, without capitalization. Please check if this is intentional.
- 3 Overview: “.. MAY also be used with a 6LBR, if one is present, and the 6BBR.” -> “between a 6LBR, if one is present, and the 6BBR.”
- 3.2 “The 6BBRs applies” -> “6BBR”
- 3.2 “in that example” -> “in this example”
- 3.3 “The 6LBR (acting as Registering Node) proxies the registration to the 6BBR, using [RFC8505] to register the addresses the 6LN (Registered Node) on its behalf to the 6BBR”.
-> “the addresses of the 6LN”
-> “its” is ambiguous. I believe that, grammatically, "it" refers to the subject, which is “the 6LBR” in this sentence. Better avoid any ambiguity by rewriting, probably cutting the sentence into several ones.
- 3.3 “As a non-normative example of a Route-Over Mesh, the 6TiSCH architecture suggests … , and is … ”. Ambiguous sentence. Break it in two. -> “a 6LBR that serves the LLN. The latter is either …”.
- 3.4 “a LLN”-> “an LLN” ?
- 3.4 “Conflicting registrations are solved by the 6BBRs transparently to the Registering Nodes.” -> “6BBRs, transparently”
- 3.6 “The router can then determine the freshest EARO in case of a conflicting NA(EARO) messages,” -. “in case of conflicting NA(EARO) messages,”
- 5. “This specification enables an address to be registered to more than one 6BBR.” -> “allows for an address to be registered at more than on 6BBR”.
- 5. “a 6LBR MUST be capable to maintain a state”-> “capable of maintaining”
- 8. “It acts as a Layer-2 Bridge for all types unicast packets” -> “all types of unicast packets”
- 8. “the 6BBR MUST either answer directly to the NS(Lookup) message or” -> “the 6BBR MUST either answer the NS(Lookup) message directly or”
- 8. “it is eventually be discovered“ -> “it is eventually discovered“
- 9. “pointing on the registering node” -> “pointing to the registering node”
- 9. “A Bridging Proxy MAY register Link Local addresses to the 6BBR and proxy ND for those addresses over the backbone.”. -> “register at the 6BBR“ or “register by the 6BBR”. -> “for these addresses”
- 9. “the current DAD operation continues as it was” -> “continues unaltered” ? 
- 9.2 “in order to a allow for a parallel registration to arrive to this node” -> “to allow” -> “to arrive at”
- 9.2 “that is not as fresh as this“ -> “that is not as fresh as this Binding“?
- 9.3 “the 6BBR MUST attempts a NUD procedure” ->  “attempt”
- 10 “routing registrar” -> “Routing Registrar”
- 11 Security Considerations: “either by means of physical or IP security for the Backbone Link or MAC-layer security.” bad grammatical construct.
- 11 Security Considerations: “A possible attack …  can easily … take over.” From the quoted text, it looks that the attack described succeeds. From the next sentence in the paragraph, it looks that the attack does not succeed. Can you rephrase or elaborate? For example “One could think that a possible attack would be …. But …”
- 12 Protocol Constants: “relatively long value” is used twice, even though the recommended value is very different. I guess you mean “STALE_DURATION
   SHOULD be configured to a value that is long relative to the address lifetime. For example, in LLNs with …, a good value is …”.
- Appendix B: “The term LLN is used … , meeting the requirements listed in … “. I guess you mean something slightly different. Using the term “LLN” cannot by itself meet the technical requirements of App B.3 of RFC8505.
- Appendix B: “Each LLN in the subnet is attached at an IPv6 Backbone Router (6BBR).” -> “attached to an IPv6 Backbone Router (6BBR)”, or “attached to the Backbone through a 6BBR”.
- Appendix B: “In this way,” -> “This way, “
- Appendix B: “The IPv6 ND operation is minimized as the number of 6LNs grows in the LLN.” ND where? On the Backbone, the number of ND operations still grows with the number of 6LNs in the LLNs, I beleive. What does “minimized” exactly means, btw? In absolute numbers? In relative numbers?