Subject: [Roll] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 00:44:26 -0700

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl/

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

I concur with Roman's DISCUSS, especially around the use of SHOULD.  I'd go
further and ask why that's not a MUST, or in the alternative, provide some
guidance around why an implementer might legitimately decide against doing what
the SHOULD said.

The document shepherd writeup is more than two years old.

In Section 2, although "AODV-RPL Instance" is defined, it is present nowhere in
the document.  Also "ART Option" doesn't seem to be ordered correctly.

In Section 9, I suggest being clear that what you're actually updating are the
named sub-registries of the "Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks
(RPL)" registry.