Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-06

Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com> Mon, 05 December 2016 21:42 UTC

Return-Path: <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82153129DE3; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 13:42:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.012
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=microsoft.com
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 YDo7s4BKzJcH; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 13:42:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn3nam01on0094.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.33.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E98671295D7; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 13:42:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=y2Ts4T+QPkwao0Nph/T4iCdIJGFmzR+X6kpVIGhVJXg=; b=Q/jzo8ypBBmJAQQvaAFD4LPrVeJVoqGDGQ/OmfRFNaxKzJPPmI1OG79Wm+ii/Qhs3raT6LHnND8JnZinFgRTYXK6e83P/wk/bKDTXStARQrP4OxFayru0Tec8vC3bz0MSeZ5zeW5pO+EWdYl5kVwkoXsGxrr2SlpUjLVLpe2U6o=
Received: from BN1PR03MB072.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.225.156) by BN1PR03MB072.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.225.156) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.761.9; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 21:42:08 +0000
Received: from BN1PR03MB072.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.7.145]) by BN1PR03MB072.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.7.145]) with mapi id 15.01.0761.016; Mon, 5 Dec 2016 21:42:08 +0000
From: Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, "draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-06
Thread-Index: AQHSRar7N1AaeIqFy0qRFNqbWGLsTqD4fBBQ
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 21:42:07 +0000
Message-ID: <BN1PR03MB07245C06835ED2B9C12C75995830@BN1PR03MB072.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <EE7359A5-ACD3-4CD1-B1B0-E01579203FFE@gmail.com> <ED803ECC-BB80-4415-AA6A-0CD52C9A2179@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <ED803ECC-BB80-4415-AA6A-0CD52C9A2179@vigilsec.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:4898:80e8:4::3da]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: a71afd1e-474c-41e8-d801-08d41d57901e
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(22001);SRVR:BN1PR03MB072;
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN1PR03MB072; 7:zDRLK/9E8nknmrEUebcFjSuiEgxOeYuM2KynFLaBu8wE6Ovvaci95pm/Ordz9fcSOuiUpNYHPtqo86WGS5Nk5/Y0gN0KGvmxOovvZkSQegb7MBGPvMJKTy6BuStDNUb5ZdB6hXsYYvyzFJIlE+X6e3/3dlw1EWRpg+vDRllwcyrCauGYvLbF1WknnM+m8F/nV/scB/7CKJzoeWWnCSmmcUUDrGmdJYT7UeLyMyCpeW6HTvEWFJRMpLrO7XDrtY5vvG28QZd5zQK8eo3Ee5kP+mTcUFgejYSjzmYSViuYLClXt7q070pAq45szFV60B9QA9/utMlYdhT50LNHAG03qTa5JG15EhZKM2ZVs4G1cgx7Eo7Vqub87klUR+eDC4CO63+fMsmDlV0E7rYF95Q1RMG4MEa9r/d4FovZ9+eiW24LUwF5HJXWaHmi8KBiZubbz18HKtofGeoquS6hTfv99aHm4CC72BDal+nd85uDsms=
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN1PR03MB072DACE905E0C70ED63519D95830@BN1PR03MB072.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(61425038)(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(61426038)(61427038)(6041248)(20161123555025)(20161123564025)(20161123562025)(20161123560025)(6047074)(6042181)(6072148); SRVR:BN1PR03MB072; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN1PR03MB072;
x-forefront-prvs: 0147E151B5
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(199003)(51444003)(189002)(124014002)(97736004)(86612001)(10290500002)(105586002)(5001770100001)(99286002)(8990500004)(189998001)(86362001)(106356001)(106116001)(10090500001)(33656002)(230783001)(5005710100001)(305945005)(54356999)(50986999)(76176999)(2501003)(2900100001)(122556002)(101416001)(76576001)(38730400001)(102836003)(6116002)(92566002)(2950100002)(74316002)(229853002)(3280700002)(6506006)(9686002)(7696004)(81156014)(5660300001)(7736002)(2906002)(81166006)(8936002)(3660700001)(4326007)(8676002)(7846002)(68736007); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN1PR03MB072; H:BN1PR03MB072.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: microsoft.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Dec 2016 21:42:08.0242 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN1PR03MB072
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/7oUsdfi-7bXCSjrlX7mq3Q-AxfU>
Cc: IETF Gen-ART <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-06
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2016 21:42:28 -0000

Thanks Russ for your review.

Inline below ...

Gabriel

...
> 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.

Reworded as follows:

s/These values/The remaining values from 1 to 254/
 
> 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.

That text now looks like this:

   ... However, a packet will get dropped by any node that does not
   understand the EET at the beginning of the packet.  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.  Placement of an EET later in the packet increases the chance
   that a legacy device will recognize and successfully process some
   dispatch type [RFC4944] before the EET.  In this case, the legacy
   device will ignore the EET instead of dropping the entire packet.
 
Hope that's clearer

> 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/

Done

> 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.

Good point, dropped the second "however". With the additional rewording you suggest below, I hope it works better.

> 
> 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.

This is what the relevant text looks like now:

   ...However, the
   octets and usage following the ESC dispatch type are not defined in
   either [RFC4944] and [RFC6282].  In recent years with 6lowpan
   deployments, implementations and standards organizations have started
   using the ESC extension octets.  This highlights the need for an
   updated IANA registration policy.
 
> In Section 3:
> s/Extended Dispatch Payload(EDP)/Extended Dispatch Payload(EDP)/

Perhaps you meant to add a space here? At any rate, we've done that already, so there is a space before the '('.
 
> In Section 4:
> s/IANA section/IANA Considerations section/

Fixed this instance as well as the one in the acks section.

Thanks!