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

From: מנחם דודג' <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 09:36:34 +0300

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

---

From: Yusuke DOI <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 00:30:25 +0900

Hi Menachem,

Thank you for the review!

On 2015-07-07 15:36, מנחם דודג' wrote:
> 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.

I would add reference. It's defined in section 5.4 of the MPL draft.

> 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.

Is this clear?: "other method to protect integrity between DHCPv6 
servers and clients"
My intention is the next sentence on ZigBee IP is an example.

> border router between the ROLL network and the Internet"  - what is
> meant by "unnecessary DHCPv6 packets"?

I mean remote DHCPv6 server case.

Is this clear?: "DHCPv6 packets SHOULD be filtered on the border router 
between the ROLL network and the Internet, except for the packets 
between the ROLL network and a remote DHCPv6 server or DHCPv6 relays 
configured to manage the network"

> NITS

Thanks, I would update and clarify the sentences on your review on the 
next revision.

Regards,

Yusuke

---

From: Yusuke DOI <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 00:30:25 +0900

Hi Menachem,

Regards,

Yusuke

---

From: מנחם דודג' <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 11:15:12 +0300

Hello Yusuke,

Yes, thank you kindly, your changes are fine, the meaning is clear.

Best Regards,
Menachem

2015-07-08 18:30 GMT+03:00 Yusuke DOI <[email-masked]>:

> Is this clear?: "other method to protect integrity between DHCPv6 servers
> and clients"
> between the ROLL network and the Internet, except for the packets between
> the ROLL network and a remote DHCPv6 server or DHCPv6 relays configured to
> manage the network"
>
>
>  NITS
>> ====
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPS-DIR mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir
>

---

From: מנחם דודג' <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 11:15:12 +0300

Hello Yusuke,

Best Regards,
Menachem