[Roll] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-12: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A few areas of ambiguity:

(1) Section 4.3.  Per “DCOSequence: Incremented at each unique DCO message …”:

-- To confirm, DCOSequence is getting incremented for each new unique DCO
message?  If so, how is it incremented?

-- How is roll-over handled?

(2) Section 4.3.4.  Per the Status field and “The remaining status values are
reserved as rejection codes”, where are those rejections codes described and
enumerated?

A few editorial nits:

** Section 1.  Editorial Nit.  s/RPL has an optional messaging/RPL has
operational messaging/

** Section 2.3.  Expand the word.  s/async/asynchronous/

** Section 4.2.  Typo. s/[RFC6550] allows parent address/[RFC6550] allows the
parent address/

** Section 4.3.  All of the other fields descriptions in this section specify
the size of the field (e.g., 8-bit) but the description of DCOSequence does not

** Section 4.3.2.  Cite the references for the permitted options

** Section 4.3.3. Typo.  s/seqeunce/sequence/

** Section 4.6.1.  Per “Note that setting the I-flag”, this sentence would read
more clearly without the double negative.