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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-6lo-dispatch-iana-registry-06
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2016-11-23
IETF LC End Date: 2016-12-08
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Almost Ready


Major Concerns: None


Minor Concerns

In Section 3, it says:

   ... The values are from 0 to 255.  Values 0 and 255 are reserved
   for future use.  These values are assigned by IANA. ...

The use of "these values" is ambiguous.  I think that you mean the
values from 1 to 254, but based on the placement of this sentence, it
could mean 0 and 255.  Please reword to be very clear.

In Section 3.1, it says:

   ... The closer to the end of the packet are the EET's, the
   higher chance there is that a legacy node will recognize and
   successfully process some dispatch type [RFC4944] before the EET and
   then ignore the EET instead of dropping the entire packet.

I cannot figure out the first part of the sentence.  After reading it 
several times, I think the sentence it trying to say that placing an
EET toward the front of the packet has a greater probability of
causing the packet to be dropped than placing the same EET later in
the packet.  Please reword.

In Section 4, it says:

   [RFC5226] section 4.1 also indicates that "Specification Required"
   implies a Designated Expert review of the public specification
   requesting registration of the ESC Extension Type values.

s/implies/calls for/


Nits

The first paragraph of the Introduction has two sentences that begin
with "However".  I think some minor rewording would make the intent
more clear to all readers.

The Introduction says:

   ...  However, in recent years with 6lowpan deployments,
   implementations and standards organizations have started using the
   ESC extension bytes and co-ordination between the respective
   organizations and IETF/IANA is needed.

First: s/co-ordination/coordination/

Second: I am glad that we are seeing deployment.  That said, deployment
itself is not a reason for coordination.  Rather, it seems that the
experience has highlighted the need for an updated IANA registration
policy.

In Section 3:
s/Extended Dispatch Payload(EDP)/Extended Dispatch Payload(EDP)/

In Section 4:
s/IANA section/IANA Considerations section/