I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq> Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header-04.txt Reviewer: Miguel Garcia Review Date: 2011-10-23 IETF LC End Date: 2011-10-31 Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. Major issues: none Minor issues: - Section 2 is titled "Overview". As such, I was expecting to find descriptive text that makes the reader easier to understand the technology that will be later described in detail and in a more normative way. However, this Section contains a number of normative texts already (MUSTs and MAYs), which defeats the purpose of an Overview Section. I wonder whether those MUSTs and MAYs words need to be really written there in that way, or whether the Overview section can be written in descriptive non-normative way. My recommendation: Turn all this normative text into informative. Make sure that the normative text is written elsewhere later in the document. - Section 2, second paragraph, says: Third, routers along the way MUST verify that loops do not exist with in the source route. I don't know how to digest this sentence. If I am implementing the protocol, is there something I can do to comply with the "MUST"? Or is this "MUS"T addressing the operation of the network? I think it is a good recommendation for network administrators, in which case, it should be exactly like that, a recommendation, not normative. But please clarify the intention. - Section 2, bullet points 1 and 2. Is there a reason why the "should" in the bullet point 1 is non-normative and the "SHOULD" in the second bullet point is normative? /Miguel -- Miguel A. Garcia +34-91-339-3608 Ericsson Spain