Subject: [Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 2011-10-20

From: "A. Jean Mahoney" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:14:55 -0500

Hi all,

Here's the link to the new LC assignments:
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/dav/genart/reviewers-111020-lc.html

The assignments are captured in the spreadsheets:
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/dav/genart/gen-art.html
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/dav/genart/gen-art-by-reviewer.html

The standard template is included below.

Thanks,

Jean

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on 
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at 
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
you may receive.

Document:
Reviewer:
Review Date:
IETF LC End Date:
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:41:34 -0400

Document: draft-ietf-6man-rpl-option-04
     RPL Option for Carrying RPL Information in Data-Plane Datagrams
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 21-Oct-2011
IETF LC End Date: 31-Oct-2011
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as a Proposed 
Standard RFC.  There is on major source of confusion that I believe 
needs to be, and can easily be, clarified.

Major issues:
     This document describes two constraints on the use of this header 
in order to ensure that the header is used only within the RPL space:
1) That an RPL Border Router must drop the packet if the outermost IPv6 
header has an RPL Option.
2) That any Router inserting an RPL Header must use IPv6-in-IPv6 
encapsulation.
All well and good.

The introduction however states that any node may choose to use this 
header.
There appear to be some unstated restrictions on end hosts in the RPL 
domain using this header.  Those need to be stated.

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:
     While calling a bit the O bit does not appear unreasonable, I note 
that when looking at the packet form, the difference between the O bit 
and the mbz bits marked as 0 is small, and a likely source of confusion 
for the reader.

---

From: Joel Halpern <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 20:24:20 -0400

[Resend with the right author address.]
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on 
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at 
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Major issues:

The introduction however states that any node may choose to use this header.
There appear to be some unstated restrictions on end hosts in the RPL 
domain using this header.  Those need to be stated.

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments: