I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
For more information, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-06 Reviewer: Russ Housley Review Date: 2016-11-23 IETF LC End Date: 2016-12-08 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Almost Ready Major Concerns: None Minor Concerns In Section 3, it says: ... The values are from 0 to 255. Values 0 and 255 are reserved for future use. These values are assigned by IANA. ... The use of "these values" is ambiguous. I think that you mean the values from 1 to 254, but based on the placement of this sentence, it could mean 0 and 255. Please reword to be very clear. In Section 3.1, it says: ... The closer to the end of the packet are the EET's, the higher chance there is that a legacy node will recognize and successfully process some dispatch type [RFC4944] before the EET and then ignore the EET instead of dropping the entire packet. I cannot figure out the first part of the sentence. After reading it several times, I think the sentence it trying to say that placing an EET toward the front of the packet has a greater probability of causing the packet to be dropped than placing the same EET later in the packet. Please reword. In Section 4, it says: [RFC5226] section 4.1 also indicates that "Specification Required" implies a Designated Expert review of the public specification requesting registration of the ESC Extension Type values. s/implies/calls for/ Nits The first paragraph of the Introduction has two sentences that begin with "However". I think some minor rewording would make the intent more clear to all readers. The Introduction says: ... However, in recent years with 6lowpan deployments, implementations and standards organizations have started using the ESC extension bytes and co-ordination between the respective organizations and IETF/IANA is needed. First: s/co-ordination/coordination/ Second: I am glad that we are seeing deployment. That said, deployment itself is not a reason for coordination. Rather, it seems that the experience has highlighted the need for an updated IANA registration policy. In Section 3: s/Extended Dispatch Payload(EDP)/Extended Dispatch Payload(EDP)/ In Section 4: s/IANA section/IANA Considerations section/ _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
