Hello Pascal,
I hope that the ADs can advise about the level of review required for
additional assignments. Your suggestion for RFC required is also
reasonable, I think, given that the IETF is owning the assignment. I
observe that "RFC required" is about the same as "MUST be supported by
an RFC", which means to me that the word "required" also carries with it
the meaning specified by 2119. But anyway I am happy to go along with
whatever people decide about this. I doubt that there is much room for
misinterpretation one way or the other.
What do you think about my suggestion to put the "Vendor IE" section
into the appendix?
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 10/24/2016 8:22 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
Dear all :
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kivinen-802-15-ie-02
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kivinen-802-15-ie-02>. These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area
Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these
comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF
contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments
that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html.
Document: draft-kivinen-802-15-ie
IEEE 802.15.4 Information Element for IETF
Reviewer: Pascal Thubert
Review Date: October 13, 2016
IETF Last Call Date: TBD
Summary:
Tero’s draft was developed outside of the working group but is an
enabler for solutions developed at 6lo and 6TiSCH. This review comes
after the ones by Pat and then Charlie, who provided the adequate
comments regarding IEEE802.15.4 and ANA. This review abstains to
comment on that. Also, this review is made in the light of the
Charlie’s proposed update.
Major issues:
I am not sure that “expert review” is the right policy for section 8
on IANA considerations. This registry is for IETF use only. Suggestion
is to use “RFC required”:
“
Future assignments in this registry are to be coordinated via IANA
under the policy of "RFC Required" (see RFC 5226).
“
Intended Status for this document: Seems to me that informational
should be the right level; see for instance
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lo-ethertype-request-01
Related: In the -04 that Charlie attached, I saw that uppercase
imperatives were added. I do not think that’s a good idea:
-Imperative “MUST” in section 7 refers to the writing of other
documents and is probably not appropriate.
-Imperative “SHOULD” in section 7 does not refer to the behavior of
the implementation of this document and is probably not appropriate
either.
-If those go away, ref to RFC 2119 is not needed and the specification
can take the informational path, much easier
Minor issues:
The need for section 5 does not appear until the IANA section. The
way it is done works, but leaves the reader puzzled. Swapping 5 and 6
and then one last sentence saying that there is no need to block
subtype IDs in the IETF IE for Vendor Specific work would have made
the reading a bit smoother.
Do we need 20% of the subtypes for experimentations? 240 to 255 seems
enough to me…
Many thanks, Tero, for this much needed work!
Pascal
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
_______________________________________________
6tisch mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
