[6lo] Re: Genart early review of draft-ietf-6lo-prefix-registration-02

[Pascal Thubert <[e-mail]>]

Dear Dan

sorry to be late on your review

Le mer. 5 juin 2024 à 17:59, Dan Romascanu via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
a écrit :

> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
> This is an Early Review of draft-ietf-6lo-prefix-registration-02, at the
> request of the WG chair, prior to the WGLC.
>
> This document updates a number of IPv6 Neighbor Discovery and 6LoWPAN
> extensions RFCs to enable a node that owns or is directly connected to a
> prefix
> to register that prefix to neighbor routers. The registration indicates
> that
> the registered prefix can be reached via the advertising node without a
> loop.
> It also extends three Routing Protocols for LLNs RFCs.
>
> The document is Ready With (a few) Issues that can be clarified during the
> WGLC. As it stands, the document can go to WGLC, and these comments can be
> dealt with during the WGLC process.
>
> My comments:
>
> 1. I am not sure about this statement being in the right place in the 2.2
> Requirements section
>
> >  In addition, the terms "Extends" and "Amends" are used as per
>    [I-D.kuehlewind-update-tag] section 3.
>
> We are dealing with Requirements and referencing an I-D seems odd.
>
>
Yes, I was told to use that header title for BCP 14. Not sure what
"Requirements" means there


> 2. For clarity, please expand / explain in 2.4 the following terms: EARO,
> DAO,
> TIO, RTO
>
> done


> 3. With all due respect to ASCII art, Figure 1 is not clear. Is there any
> difference between an 'o' and a 'z'?
>

added

  z : wireless link, direct L2 connection
  o : node


> 4. There is an 'Extending 7400' section, but RFC 7400 is not included in
> the
> list on the header, or mentioned in the first paragraph.
>
> done



> 5. I appreciate the Backward Compatibility section, but I am wondering
> whether
> there are any compatibility issues related to scalability or provisioning
> that
> an operator or user should be aware about when deploying the newly defined
> extensions. Maybe there is room for an Operational Considerations section,
> or
> for a sub-section in the Backwards Compatibility section.
>
>
Will consider this for the next rev!

many thanks, Dan

Pascal




-- 
Pascal