Hi, I was asked by the IETF to do a Routing-Directorate review of draft-ietf-roll-useofrplinfo. Please note that I do NOT follow the ROLL WG. Overall I think the draft tries too hard to condense information into one document. It often uses non-intuitive abbreviations (e.g. "RPL-aware-Leaf" as "RaF" or "target" as "tgt") and I just don't know if this is the common way to do it in ROLL or just an unlucky accident. A lot of tables are literally overloaded with information to the point where the document generator splits apart words, making the table unreadable (see table 4,6,7,8,11,21 among others). Other table entries are just not easy to interpret. Table 7 (as an example) has the options "no, "must" and "yes" for a column which raises the question what is the difference between "must" and "yes". I am not sure what advice to give for the draft, if this (as the abstract states) is the analysis for the basis of header compression design I am worried that the design decisions will be hard to understand. Henning Rogge