Re: END of WGLC draft-ietf-ipdvb-ule-04.txt

[Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>]

I apologize for being late with reviewing this draft.
I have a couple (63, to be precise) editorial comments that I have sent 
to the authors.
No big problems in here, but some language that the authors may or may 
not want to improve (and some minor contradictions that have an obvious 
resolution).
I'll leave it to the discretion of the authors how to use these 
comments.

One question though: Why is it that ethertype frames can be sent 
without MAC but length (LLC) frames can't?
Is the assumption that all LLC protocols need full MAC addresses?
I don't know all existing LLC protocols, but I know at least one 
proposal for one that probably doesn't.
It would be easy to introduce a mandatory extension header 2, which is 
like 1 (i.e., does not allow chaining) but leaves out the 14 bytes of 
(DA, SA, Type -- the latter is redundant with the LLC length), leading 
to:

	   0                   1                   2                   3
	   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
	  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	  |1|        Length  (15b)        |         Type = 0x0002         |
	  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	  |                                                               |
	  =                           LLC payload                         =
	  |                                                               |
	  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	  |                             (CRC-32)                          |
	  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

(and the obvious equivalent for D=0).

Oh, and I'm a bit confused about the IANA policies (why do the specs 
only have to define name, value, need, and intent? Wouldn't semantics 
be nice?).

Gruesse, Carsten