Last Call Review of draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-13

Request Review of draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-07-04
Requested 2019-06-20
Authors Ron Bonica, Fred Baker, Geoff Huston, Bob Hinden, Ole Trøan, Fernando Gont
Draft last updated 2019-07-04
Completed reviews Intdir Early review of -10 by Tim Chown (diff)
Tsvart Early review of -09 by Gorry Fairhurst (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -13 by Pete Resnick (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -12 by Stig Venaas (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -15 by Zitao Wang (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Pete Resnick 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-13-genart-lc-resnick-2019-07-04
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 13 (document currently at 17)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2019-07-04


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


Document: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-13
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2019-07-04
IETF LC End Date: 2019-07-04
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: A document so well-written that even this application-layer idiot could follow along easily. Thanks for that. I see no significant issues with this document going forward as a BCP; just a few editorial bits.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

In Section 2.1 and 2.2, Instead of "set to one" and "set to zero", it would read easier with "set to (1)" and "set to (0)", or some similar construction.

Section 3 is in an odd place. I'd say either move it up to the top, or put it down in section 7.

4.2 mentions virtual reassembly. Virtual reassembly applies to 4.1, 4.3, and 4.4 as well. Perhaps moving the discussion of virtual reassembly up to the top of 4 would make more sense.

In 4.5, insert "duplicate IDs resulting in" after prevent. It took me a bit to figure out what this was referring to. Also, change "are not easily reproducible" to "do not occur as frequently"; I think it reads better.

And just to yell into the wind: Section 7.3 seemed a little wimpy to me, but I can't for the life of me figure out how to make it any stronger or more likely to be listened to. End of pointless yelling.