[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-rserpool-common-param-16.txt

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
draft-ietf-rserpool-common-param-16.txt

For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.

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

Summary: This draft is on the right track but there are a few issues
that need to be fixed.

Major
=====

* The usage of the Operational Error parameter is not very well 
specified. Let's say I have an unrecognized parameter of type 0xdead.
- What is the actual content of the Unrecognized Parameter cause? Is it 
just the type code or is it the complete parameter?
- When multiple nodes along the path do not recognize a given parameter 
(say 0xdead - two MSBs are 11) will they each add an Unknown parameter 
error cause for the same parameter?

* IANA considerations

The semantics of the message type field described in this document are 
completely lost since there is no direction to IANA. If you look at the 
enrp document for example, it requests message types from IANA, but the 
IANA registry will not contain the semantics about the first two bits.

Minor
=====

* Section 3

"The value of 65535 is reserved for IETF-defined extensions"

This is not shown in the initial allocation request for the IANA. Please 
fix this.

* Section 3.9

What is the namespace that the "Policy Type" comes out of? I could not 
see a definition of this namespace anywhere. e.g. What does the value 3 
mean in this field? This needs to be clarified.

* Section 3.15

PE Checksum parameter explicitly shows the padding while the other 
parameters do not. Please remove the explicit padding from this. I do 
realize this is the only parameter whose parameter value is not a 
multiple of 4 octets long

Editorial
=========

* Section 3.12 ENRP is misspelled as ENPR.

Cheers
Suresh

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art