[Resend with the right author address.]
I am the assigned 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 Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-6man-rpl-option-04
RPL Option for Carrying RPL Information in Data-Plane Datagrams
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 21-Oct-2011
IETF LC End Date: 31-Oct-2011
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as a Proposed
Standard RFC. There is on major source of confusion that I believe
needs to be, and can easily be, clarified.
Major issues:
This document describes two constraints on the use of this header
in order to ensure that the header is used only within the RPL space:
1) That an RPL Border Router must drop the packet if the outermost IPv6
header has an RPL Option.
2) That any Router inserting an RPL Header must use IPv6-in-IPv6
encapsulation.
All well and good.
The introduction however states that any node may choose to use this header.
There appear to be some unstated restrictions on end hosts in the RPL
domain using this header. Those need to be stated.
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
While calling a bit the O bit does not appear unreasonable, I note
that when looking at the packet form, the difference between the O bit
and the mbz bits marked as 0 is small, and a likely source of confusion
for the reader.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
