[Roll] [OPS-DIR] OPS-DIR Review of draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-06

[מנחם דודג' <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational
aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call
may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and
WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call
comments.

This document is for the Standards Track.

This document defines a DHCPv6 option that will allow a network to be
configured with a single set of "Multicast Protocol for Low power and Lossy
Networks" (MPL) parameters easily. This is needed because MPL has a set of
parameters to control its behavior which need to be identical for each MPL
forwarder in the MPL domain.

The MPL is defined in I-D ietf-roll-trickle-mcast


The document is quite readable.


Section 2.1 could be improved if for each parameter defined a reference
would be given to indicate where the parameter is defined. I found most of
them in: draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast-12 but for example, I'm not sure
what the Proactive_Forwarding flag is used for.

Section 4 discusses Security Considerations but I think that some phrases
in the paragraph are too general.
Example:  "other methods for security should be applied" does not indicate
what these methods are or where to look for them.
Another Example: "To protect attacks from outside of
the network, unneccessary DHCPv6 packets should be filtered on the
border router between the ROLL network and the Internet"  - what is meant
by "unnecessary DHCPv6 packets"?


NITS
====

Section 2.3 First Paragraph Second Sentence - Remove 'is'

OLD           ==> Note that there may be cases in which a node may fail is
to join a domain
SUGGEST ==> Note that there may be cases in which a node may fail to join a
domain

Section 2.3 Last Paragraph is not clear.

Perhaps the last sentence should read "In this case" (instead of "In the
case").


Section 2.6 - First Sentence - Not Clear

Is the update rate not to be more than twice the Information Refresh Time?
Not clear to me how many updates are allowed in an Information Refresh Time.

Should the word 'of' be replaced by 'the'.

"more often than twice *the* Information Refresh Time".

Suggest rephrasing this paragraph.


Otherwise I have no other issues with teh document.

Thank you kindly,
Menachem