Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-06
review-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-06-genart-lc-evens-2020-01-15-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2020-01-22
Requested 2020-01-08
Authors Diego Dujovne, Michael Richardson
Draft last updated 2020-01-15
Completed reviews Iotdir Early review of -05 by Carles Gomez (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Yoav Nir (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Tim Evens (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Qin Wu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tim Evens
State Completed
Review review-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-06-genart-lc-evens-2020-01-15
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/0LHFPs5vWnVFMWbPzRH1X6eZ90s
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 14)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2020-01-15

Review
review-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-06-genart-lc-evens-2020-01-15

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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-6tisch-enrollment-enhanced-beacon-??
Reviewer: Tim Evens
Review Date: 2020-01-15
IETF LC End Date: 2020-01-22
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: 
Overall looks good with some minor nits. 
 
Major issues:
None

Minor issues:
None

Nits/editorial comments:

In section 1.2,
"These slots are rare, and with 10ms
   slots, with a slot-frame length of 100, there may be only 1 slot/s
   for the beacon."

IMO, this could be reworded to increase clarity. For example, "Considering 10ms slots and a slot-frame length of 100, these slots are rare and could result in only 1 slot for a beacon."


In section 1.3,
"At layer 3, [RFC4861] defines a mechanism by which nodes learn about
   routers by listening for multicasted Router Advertisements (RA)."

Would it be possible to reword to not use "multicasted?"  For example,
"by receiving multicast Router Advertisements (RA)." 

"no RA is heard within a set time, then a Router Solicitation (RS) may
   be multicast,"

"may be sent as multicast" might be more clear. 

In section 2,
"proxy priority  this field indicates the willingness fo the sender to
      act as join proxy.  Lower value indicates greater willingness"

Typo "fo"

IMO, it would be clearer if the field name in the protocol header
matches the description for it. For example, "Proxy priority (proxy prio)"

	
In Section 4,
"An interloper with a radio sniffer would be able to use the network
   ID to map out the extend of the mesh network."

extend or extent?