I reviewed draft-ietf-roll-admin-local-policy-02 as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the operational area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. I do not see any specific operational issues with this ID but the following are some suggestions to make the document clearer abstract & introduction: the ID talks about MPL but never defines the term - would seem to be a logical thing to do - if MPL is defined in an RFC it would be good to say so here it would be nice to have an overall descriptionsave the reader from having to read between the lines sec 2.2 - for the other link layers you say "IPv For the sake of symmetry it would be good to say sec 3.1 - MPL_TO - expected to be received? or expected to be sent - be clear sec 3.2 - what does "associated with themean something else please say what I do not see where the MPL option is defined (e.g. a pointer to a RFC which defines it) I also do not see where the TRICKLE algorithm is defined or described Scott