[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header-04.txt

"Miguel A. Garcia" <Miguel.A.Garcia@ericsson.com> Mon, 24 October 2011 18:31 UTC

Return-Path: <miguel.a.garcia@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65BE321F8BF9; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.274
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.274 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.325, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jiVfkfHjDZua; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F3D821F8BF0; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7c26ae0000035b9-5d-4ea5af11cdb8
Received: from esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain []) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id D3.AF.13753.11FA5AE4; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:31:45 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( by esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:31:44 +0200
Message-ID: <4EA5AF0F.8090704@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:31:43 +0200
From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <Miguel.A.Garcia@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: jhui@archrock.com, jpv@cisco.com, culler@cs.berkeley.edu, vishwas@ipinfusion.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, brian haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header-04.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 24 Oct 2011 18:31:47 -0000

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

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

Document: draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header-04.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <miguel.a.garcia@ericsson.com>
Review Date: 2011-10-23
IETF LC End Date: 2011-10-31

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that 
should be fixed before publication.

Major issues: none

Minor issues:

- Section 2 is titled "Overview". As such, I was expecting to find 
descriptive text that makes the reader easier to understand the 
technology that will be later described in detail and in a more normative 
way. However, this Section contains a number of normative texts already 
(MUSTs and MAYs), which defeats the purpose of an Overview Section. I 
wonder whether those MUSTs and MAYs words need to be really written there 
in that way, or whether the Overview section can be written in 
descriptive non-normative way.

My recommendation: Turn all this normative text into informative. Make 
sure that the normative text is written elsewhere later in the document.

- Section 2, second paragraph, says:

    Third, routers along the way MUST verify that loops do not exist with
    in the source route.

I don't know how to digest this sentence. If I am implementing the 
protocol, is there something I can do to comply with the "MUST"? Or is 
this "MUS"T addressing the operation of the network? I think it is a good 
recommendation for network administrators, in which case, it should be 
exactly like that, a recommendation, not normative. But please clarify 
the intention.

- Section 2, bullet points 1 and 2. Is there a reason why the "should" in 
the bullet point 1 is non-normative and the "SHOULD" in the second bullet 
point is normative?


Miguel A. Garcia
Ericsson Spain