Dear Roni,
Thank you for your review.
Please, see my answers below.
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 09:52 Roni Even via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review result: Almost Ready
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-??
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2019-06-16
IETF LC End Date: 2019-06-26
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
Summary:
The document is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC
Major issues:
Minor issues:
1. Section 4.2 says "IP packets MUST be transmitted over 802.11-OCB media as
QoS Data" while appendix F say "The STA may send data frames of subtype Data,
Null, QoS Data, and
QoS Null.
I will update the appendix to reflect the text in section 4.2.
2. In section 5.2 "The policy dictating when the MAC address is changed on the
802.11-OCB interface is to-be-determined.". Reading the next sentence it looks
to me that this is needed as part of the solution and should not be left for
the unknown future.
Should we reformulate here?
3. In Appendix I 4th paragraph " However, this does not apply if TBD TBD TBD. "
.. What are the TBDs?
The whole sentence will be removed.
Nits/editorial comments:
1. In appendix I last paragraph "Support of RFC 8505 is may be implemented on
OCB." should be "Support of RFC 8505 may be implemented on OCB." 2. In Appendix
I "OCB nodes that support RFC 8505 would support the 6LN operation in order to
act as a host". I think that instead of "would" it should be "should" also if
this is a recommendation why not have this paragraph not in an appendix with
"MAY" and "SHOULD
Agreed.
