[manet] Review of draft-ietf-manet-dlep-radio-band-02

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

Comments as a WG participant on draft-ietf-manet-dlep-radio-band-02

This is a short draft specifying an extension to the DLEP protocol to
provide information on frequency bands used by a radio.

I do not see any major problems with this draft.

Minor
-----

Abstract: The extension does not actually provide "the frequency bands"
but rather provides "information about the frequency bands".

Section 1: Normally all the information that appears in the Abstract
should also appear in the Introduction. You could just change the last
sentence of Section 1 to "This document defines one such extension to
provide information about the frequency bands used by the radio." or
the like.

Section 1.1 needs to be replaced by the modern required boilerplate as
specified in RFC 8174. At this point the new boilerplate has been
required for more than eight years. It should be incorporated into
most draft templates.

Section 3:
     The Figure should have a caption. Could just be "Radio Band Data
Item Format" or something like that.
     Presenting a 64-bit field as two sequential 32-bit fields with
identical names is confusing and easy to fix. This was noted in the
early RTGDIR review of this draft
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-manet-dlep-radio-band-01-rtgdir-early-white-2025-05-03/)
If I recall correctly, I also noted this in a review of another DLEP
draft and the reason given was that this was how it was done in earlier
RFCs which I accepted at the time. I now think that was a mistake.
Fixing this and other new documents will, in my opinion, result in
less confusion than sticking with a previously used confusing format.
These fields should be either labeled "upper half" and "lower half" or
the like or merged as was suggested in the RTGDIR review.
     The abbreviation "Hz" needs to at least be expanded on first
use. Since it only appears twice, I don't see much need to abbreviate
it at all.
     For Reserved, the document needs to also say "ignored on receipt"
unless that is not true in which case it needs to specify what is done
if this field is non-zero on receipt.

Section 6: RFC 8174 will need to be added as a normative reference.

Nits
----

Section 1: I believe "are comprised of" is grammatically erroneous. It
should be "consist of" or "comprise".

Section 3, third paragraph "use" -> "uses"

Sections 5.1 and 5.2: Although I guess it is pretty obvious, it is
normal to provide all the columns present in the IANA registry. So, I
would add a third column to the tables in these sections headed
"Description" with the entry being "[this document]".

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 [e-mail]