Telechat Review of draft-kivinen-802-15-ie-04

Request Review of draft-kivinen-802-15-ie
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Telechat Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2017-02-14
Requested 2017-01-23
Draft last updated 2017-03-01
Completed reviews Intdir Early review of -02 by Charles Perkins (diff)
Intdir Early review of -02 by Pascal Thubert (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -04 by Scott Bradner (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -04 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -04 by Magnus Nystrom (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -06 by Scott Bradner
Assignment Reviewer Scott Bradner
State Completed
Review review-kivinen-802-15-ie-04-opsdir-telechat-bradner-2017-03-01
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 06)
Review result Serious Issues
Review completed: 2017-03-01


This is an OPS-DIR review of draft-kivinen-802-15-ie-04.txt.

IEEE 802.15.4 Information Element for IETF (draft-kivinen-802-15-ie-04.txt) is a 
request to the IEEE 802.15 Assigned Numbers Authority (ANA)for a Payload Information
 Element (IE) number and a request that the IANA manage suballocations of the number for the IETF.

overall status: not ready for publication - non-technical updates needed

in my opinion the document assumes to  many things and should be revised to assume less.  
For example it never defines what IEEE 802.15.4 is - Wikipedia says that it is "a technical 
standard which defines the operation of low-rate wireless personal area networks (LR-WPANs)" - 
adding that information would make the document much more approachable to most people.

 The document also does not explain what IEs actually are or what types of extensions they
enable.  Providing a pointer to an example of what type of information to be inserted in the 802.15.4 
frame & why would help make things clearer. (maybe a 6TiSCH document)

2nd paragraph in section 4 starts:
"Because the frame contains a list of payload IEs, there is no need for this 
document to specify the internal structure inside the IETF IE."

I do not understand what this is trying to say - can it be rewritten to be clearer?  I have the same 
problem with the rest of the same paragraph. 

In section 7 the document calls for "expert review" - it seems to me that one would want 
to also require documentation (in fact the 1st paragraph in section 6 says that documents 
are required) and I wonder, if this is only for use in IETF protocols, why it should not require 
IESG approval (or even standards action) - I would also reference RFC 5226 and follow its specific wording

the last paragraph in section 4 seems out of place in this document since it describes 
how to use the IETF IE and nothing else in the document seems to cover that topic - if 
this document wants to cover use I would expect more information would be needed