[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-roll-minrank-hysteresis-of-07

"Miguel A. Garcia" <Miguel.A.Garcia@ericsson.com> Tue, 27 March 2012 20:44 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 [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8166121F8497 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.435
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.435 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.164, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O0D9UBrxkw2v for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6CB621F8495 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:44:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7c6fae0000045c0-a7-4f7226b3a504
Received: from esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 32.6E.17856.3B6227F4; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:44:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [159.107.105.111] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.94) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.213.0; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:44:35 +0200
Message-ID: <4F7226B1.60709@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:44:33 +0200
From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <Miguel.A.Garcia@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Thunderbird/11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gnawali@cs.stanford.edu, pal@cs.stanford.edu, jpv@cisco.com, roll-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-roll-minrank-hysteresis-of-07
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: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 20:44:38 -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
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>

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

Document: draft-ietf-roll-minrank-hysteresis-of-07
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <miguel.a.garcia@ericsson.com>
Review Date: 2012-03-27
IETF LC End Date: 2012-04-06

Summary: The document is ready for publication as a standards track RFC

Major issues: none

Minor issues: none

Nits/editorial comments:

- The second sentence of the Abstract reads:

   This specification describes the Minimum Rank Objective Function with
   Hysteresis (MRHOF), ...

But the title (two lines above) reads slightly different:

   The Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective Function

I suggest o always use the same term. Since the selected acronym is 
MRHOF, I would suggest to always use the title to refer to MRHOF.


- Section 1, last paragraph. The second sentence in this paragraph is 
incomplete.

- Please expand acronyms at first usage. This includes: DODAG, ETX

- Section 3.1. Towards the end of the section, the sentence reads:

    The path cost corresponding to a neighbor SHOULD be re-computed each
    time:

and then there are 3 conditions numbered from 1 to 3. It is not clear if 
the path cost should be recomputed when all of the 3 conditions are met, 
or when any of the 3 conditions are met. In other words, it is not clear 
if the 3 bullet points are an "AND" or an "OR" operation among then. 
Presumably they are an "OR". If this is the case, perhaps the sentence 
should be rephrased as:

    The path cost corresponding to a neighbor SHOULD be re-computed each
    time any of the following conditions are met:

/Miguel
-- 
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain