Subject: [Roll] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-06: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 06:16:48 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-roll-mpl-parameter-configuration-06: 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-mpl-parameter-configuration/

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

>From the OPS-DIR review done by Menachem:

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.