Subject: [6lo] TSV ART early review of draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:34:15 -0700

Hi, all,

I've reviewed this document as part of the Transport Area Review Team's
(TSVART) 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 ​[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> if you reply to or forward this review.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-6lo-6lobac 
Title: Transmission of IPv6 over MS/TP Networks
Reviewer: J. Touch
Review Date: Sept 26, 2016
IETF Last Call Date: TBD

Summary: The document impacts transport protocols only indirectly
through its need to support the minimum required IPv6 MTU. The protocol
already supports1280-1500B payloads without fragmentation and uses its
own link header. This is sufficient for IPv6 and there should be no new
interaction with transports.

Major issues: There are no major TSV issues.

Minor issues: There are no minor TSV issues.

---

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:36:07 -0700

CC'ing tsv-art...

On 9/26/2016 2:34 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
> Hi, all,
>
> I've reviewed this document as part of the Transport Area Review
> Team's (TSVART) 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
> ​[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> if you reply to or forward
> this review.
>
> through its need to support the minimum required IPv6 MTU. The
> protocol already supports1280-1500B payloads without fragmentation and
> uses its own link header. This is sufficient for IPv6 and there should
> be no new interaction with transports.
>