Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of IETF LC draft-ietf-6lowpan-problem-07.txt

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:45:49 +0200

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-6lowpan-problem-07.txt
Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Review Date:  2007-02-16
IETF LC End Date: 2007-03-01
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC.

Comments:

A couple of minor comments:

1) The draft indicates in its 3rd line that the intended status is 
"Standards Track". However, the I-D tracker is listing it as 
Informational. The draft itself seems to be merely informational, due to 
the lack of normative statements.

2) Since the draft does not contain any normative statement (capitalized 
MUST, MAY, SHOULD, etc.), I am not sure if Section 1.1 and the reference 
to RFC 2119 makes sense. It could be safely deleted.

3) The split between normative and informative references is a bit 
subjective. In my opinion, the only normative references here should be 
[ieee802.15.4] and [RFC2460], I think the others are informative in nature.

Other than these nits, the draft looks good.

/Miguel

_________
-- 
Miguel A. Garcia           tel:+358-50-4804586
sip:[email-masked]
Nokia Research Center      Helsinki, Finland

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:47:30 +0100

Miguel Garcia wrote:
> Informational. The draft itself seems to be merely informational, due 
> to the lack of normative statements.
Yes, it should be Informational. The proper status is in the tracker, so 
I think we can leave it up to the RFC Editor here. I'll include a note 
for them if the document doesn't end up being revised for some other reason.
>
> 2) Since the draft does not contain any normative statement 
> (capitalized MUST, MAY, SHOULD, etc.), I am not sure if Section 1.1 
> and the reference to RFC 2119 makes sense. It could be safely deleted.
Agreed.
> subjective. In my opinion, the only normative references here should 
> be [ieee802.15.4] and [RFC2460], I think the others are informative in 
> nature.
>
Thanks for the review. I'll capture these as Editor's notes for now.

- Mark