Last Call Review of draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-04

Request Review of draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2015-07-07
Requested 2015-06-23
Authors Yusuke Doi, Matthew Gillmore
Draft last updated 2015-07-13
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Peter Yee (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Peter Yee (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Brian Weis (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Menachem Dodge (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Menachem Dodge 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-04-opsdir-lc-dodge-2015-07-13
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 08)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2015-07-13



I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

This document is for the Standards Track.

This document defines a DHCPv6 option that will allow a network to be configured with a single set of "Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks" (MPL) parameters easily. This is needed because MPL has a set of parameters to control its behavior which need to be identical for each MPL forwarder in the MPL domain.

The MPL is defined in I-D ietf-roll-trickle-mcast

The document is quite readable.

Section 2.1 could be improved if for each parameter defined a reference would be given to indicate where the parameter is defined. I found most of them in: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-12 but for example, I'm not sure what the Proactive_Forwarding flag is used for.

Section 4 discusses Security Considerations but I think that some phrases in the paragraph are too general.

Example:  "other methods for security should be applied" does not indicate what these methods are or where to look for them.

Another Example: "

To protect attacks from outside of

the network, unneccessary DHCPv6 packets should be filtered on the

border router between the ROLL network and the Internet"  - what is meant by "unnecessary DHCPv6 packets"?



Section 2.3 First Paragraph Second Sentence - Remove 'is'

OLD           ==> Note that there may be cases in which a node may fail is to join a domain


Note that there may be cases in which a node may fail to join a domain

Section 2.3 Last Paragraph is not clear.

Perhaps the last sentence should read "In this case" (instead of "In the case").

Section 2.6 - First Sentence - Not Clear

Is the update rate not to be more than twice the Information Refresh Time? Not clear to me how many updates are allowed in an Information Refresh Time.

Should the word 'of' be replaced by 'the'.

"more often than twice 


 Information Refresh Time".

Suggest rephrasing this paragraph.

Otherwise I have no other issues with teh document.

Thank you kindly,