Telechat Review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-25

Request Review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 29)
Type Telechat Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2016-12-13
Requested 2016-11-03
Authors Stan Ratliff, Shawn Jury, Darryl Satterwhite, Rick Taylor, Bo Berry
Draft last updated 2016-12-14
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -25 by Matthew Miller (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -25 by Paul Hoffman (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -25 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -13 by Lou Berger (diff)
Tsvart Telechat review of -25 by Michael Scharf (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Michael Scharf 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-manet-dlep-25-tsvart-telechat-scharf-2016-12-14
Reviewed rev. 25 (document currently at 29)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2016-12-14



I've reviewed this document as part of TSV-ART's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors for their information and to allow them to address any issues raised. When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review together with any other last-call comments they receive. Please always CC if you reply to or forward this review.

This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication.

TSV-ART review comments:

* I think the DLEP protocol makes an implicit assumption that the 1-hop link between the router and the modem is unlikely to become a bottleneck, e.g., because its bandwidth is larger than the maximum possible bandwidth of the modem. I assume that in typical deployments this condition can be fulfilled, and the hop count limitation provides some safety measures. Yet, the link between the router and modem could possibly run over a tunnel, with unknown performance characteristics (e.g., another wireless backhaul link). It is unclear what a router would indeed learn from the information provided by DLEP in such a case. This scenario is not the target environment for the protocol, but it would make sense to more explicitly spell out that assumption, e.g., in Section 1.  

Other comments:

* Page 9: "If the router and modem support both IPv4 and IPv6, the IPv6 transport MUST be used for the DLEP session." seems inconsistent with page 21: "For routers supporting both IPv4 and IPv6 DLEP operation, it is RECOMMENDED that IPv6 be selected as the transport."

* I am not an IANA expert but at first sight the IANA section does not comprehensively describe the policy for modifying the IANA registries (Section 4 in RFC 5226). Is it "Standards Action"? This in particular matters for the extensions in Section 13.6.