Last Call Review of draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-25
review-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-25-tsvart-lc-perkins-2019-04-11-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 31)
Type Last Call Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2019-04-11
Requested 2019-03-21
Draft last updated 2019-04-11
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -25 by Henning Rogge (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -25 by Daniel Migault (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -25 by Colin Perkins (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -25 by Russ Housley (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Colin Perkins
State Completed
Review review-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-25-tsvart-lc-perkins-2019-04-11
Reviewed rev. 25 (document currently at 31)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2019-04-11

Review
review-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo-25-tsvart-lc-perkins-2019-04-11

This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team'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 and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.

The draft updates RFC 6553 to use a different IPv6 hop-by-hop option type for RPL packets, to avoid some issues discovered through deployment experience. This looks to require a flag day cutover, and hence has some potential interoperability concerns, but introduces no transport concern. The draft also describes a number of clarifications around when to use the RPL hop-by-hop option header and when to use IP-in-IP tunnelling, described based on a set of use case examples.

There do not look to be any new transport-related concerns with this draft.

The draft does not mention ECN when using IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling. It is perhaps implied, but a reference to RFC 6040 would be helpful to clarify how ECN bits are copied between inner and outer headers when encapsulating and decapsulating packets from an IPv6-in-IPv6 tunnel. ECN is seeing increasing use in transport protocols, so correctly propagating this information is important.