Return-Path: X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63E221295B0; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 21:08:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.15 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); domainkeys=pass (384-bit key) header.from=charles.perkins@earthlink.net header.d=earthlink.net Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id er3dAMn-mIrX; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 21:08:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.70]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19D2312940E; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 21:08:18 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=MbyBoQAWJrIn35YGOZqwfAU6rjAHxPvM2VNCMl9XEW0ero5erRtzJyNq90wj2dyr; h=Received:Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Message-ID:Date:User-Agent:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [99.51.72.196] (helo=[192.168.1.82]) by elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1byt1K-0003gK-U2; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 00:07:27 -0400 To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" References: <0c8d9a37da1648879577c72ce5b46ff1@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> From: Charlie Perkins Message-ID: <15417df8-abf5-4496-fb58-28d233445011@earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 21:07:04 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0c8d9a37da1648879577c72ce5b46ff1@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------3A1D63C110313FB5FA13455C" X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956527bd5036cbc8ac7282b68581f080fb54bf8050d25584dae350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 99.51.72.196 Archived-At: Cc: "draft-kivinen-802-15-ie@tools.ietf.org" , "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>, "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, "int-dir@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [6lo] [6tisch] A review of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kivinen-802-15-ie-02 for INT-DIR X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 04:08:21 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------3A1D63C110313FB5FA13455C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello Pascal, I hope that the ADs can advise about the level of review required for additional assignments. Your suggestion for RFC required is also reasonable, I think, given that the IETF is owning the assignment. I observe that "RFC required" is about the same as "MUST be supported by an RFC", which means to me that the word "required" also carries with it the meaning specified by 2119. But anyway I am happy to go along with whatever people decide about this. I doubt that there is much room for misinterpretation one way or the other. What do you think about my suggestion to put the "Vendor IE" section into the appendix? Regards, Charlie P. On 10/24/2016 8:22 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > > Dear all : > > I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kivinen-802-15-ie-02 > . These > comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area > Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these > comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF > contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments > that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html. > > Document: draft-kivinen-802-15-ie > > IEEE 802.15.4 Information Element for IETF > > Reviewer: Pascal Thubert > > Review Date: October 13, 2016 > > IETF Last Call Date: TBD > > Summary: > > Tero’s draft was developed outside of the working group but is an > enabler for solutions developed at 6lo and 6TiSCH. This review comes > after the ones by Pat and then Charlie, who provided the adequate > comments regarding IEEE802.15.4 and ANA. This review abstains to > comment on that. Also, this review is made in the light of the > Charlie’s proposed update. > > Major issues: > > I am not sure that “expert review” is the right policy for section 8 > on IANA considerations. This registry is for IETF use only. Suggestion > is to use “RFC required”: > > “ > > Future assignments in this registry are to be coordinated via IANA > under the policy of "RFC Required" (see RFC 5226). > > “ > > Intended Status for this document: Seems to me that informational > should be the right level; see for instance > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-ethertype-request-01 > > Related: In the -04 that Charlie attached, I saw that uppercase > imperatives were added. I do not think that’s a good idea: > > -Imperative “MUST” in section 7 refers to the writing of other > documents and is probably not appropriate. > > -Imperative “SHOULD” in section 7 does not refer to the behavior of > the implementation of this document and is probably not appropriate > either. > > -If those go away, ref to RFC 2119 is not needed and the specification > can take the informational path, much easier > > Minor issues: > > The need for section 5 does not appear until the IANA section. The > way it is done works, but leaves the reader puzzled. Swapping 5 and 6 > and then one last sentence saying that there is no need to block > subtype IDs in the IETF IE for Vendor Specific work would have made > the reading a bit smoother. > > Do we need 20% of the subtypes for experimentations? 240 to 255 seems > enough to me… > > Many thanks, Tero, for this much needed work! > > Pascal > > > > _______________________________________________ > 6tisch mailing list > 6tisch@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch --------------3A1D63C110313FB5FA13455C Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hello Pascal,

I hope that the ADs can advise about the level of review required for additional assignments.  Your suggestion for RFC required is also reasonable, I think, given that the IETF is owning the assignment.  I observe that "RFC required" is about the same as "MUST be supported by an RFC", which means to me that the word "required" also carries with it the meaning specified by 2119.  But anyway I am happy to go along with whatever people decide about this.  I doubt that there is much room for misinterpretation one way or the other.

What do you think about my suggestion to put the "Vendor IE" section into the appendix?

Regards,
Charlie P.



On 10/24/2016 8:22 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:

Dear all :

 

I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kivinen-802-15-ie-02. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html.

 

Document: draft-kivinen-802-15-ie

IEEE 802.15.4 Information Element for IETF

Reviewer: Pascal Thubert

Review Date: October 13, 2016

IETF Last Call Date: TBD

 

Summary: 

 

Tero’s draft was developed outside of the working group but is an enabler for solutions developed at 6lo and 6TiSCH. This review comes after the ones by Pat and then Charlie, who provided the adequate comments regarding IEEE802.15.4 and ANA. This review abstains to comment on that. Also, this review is made in the light of the Charlie’s proposed update.

 

Major issues:

 

I am not sure that “expert review” is the right policy for section 8 on IANA considerations. This registry is for IETF use only. Suggestion is to use “RFC required”:

“

   Future assignments in this registry are to be coordinated via IANA under the policy of "RFC Required" (see RFC 5226).

“

 

Intended Status for this document: Seems to me that  informational should be the right level; see for instance https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-ethertype-request-01

Related: In the -04 that Charlie attached, I saw that uppercase imperatives were added. I do not think that’s a good idea:

-         Imperative “MUST” in section 7 refers to the writing of other documents and is probably not appropriate.

-         Imperative “SHOULD” in section 7 does not refer to the behavior of the implementation of this document and is probably not appropriate either.

-         If those go away, ref to RFC 2119 is not needed and the specification can take the informational path, much easier

 

 

Minor issues:

 

 The need for section 5 does not appear until the IANA section. The way it is done works, but leaves the reader puzzled. Swapping 5 and 6 and then one last sentence saying that there is no need to block subtype IDs in the IETF IE for Vendor Specific work would have made the reading a bit smoother.

 

Do we need 20% of the subtypes for experimentations? 240 to 255 seems enough to me…

 

 

Many thanks, Tero, for this much needed work!

 

Pascal

 

 



_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
6tisch@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch

--------------3A1D63C110313FB5FA13455C--