Analysis of IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 Based Networks
draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-link-model-analysis-03

Nits:
Section 3.1 para 1:
   for constructing their global IPv6 addresses, however this model does
   not any multicast capability.  The following figures illustrates high
      ^                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^
   provide?                                             illustrate a
   level view of this link model wherein one more prefixes advertised on
                                            ^
                                            or

INTRODUCTION, paragraph 2:
>          Analysis of IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 based Networks

  Add "IEEE" in front of 802.16 and other IEEE spec numbers throughout
  the document.


Section 6., paragraph 0:
>    3.  IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 based Networks . . . . . . . . . .  4
>      3.1.  Shared IPv6 Prefix Link Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
>        3.1.1.  Prefix Assignment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
>        3.1.2.  Address Autoconfiguration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
>        3.1.3.  Duplicate Address Detection  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
>        3.1.4.  Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
>        3.1.5.  Applicability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
...
>    4.  Renumbering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
>    5.  Effect on Dormant Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

  It's confusing to see some characteristics being discussed in
  subsections (e.g., Prefix Assignment) and others in standalone
  sections (e.g., Renumbering). Also, a discussion of DAD for the
  point-to-point model seems to be missing?


  Expand acronyms on first use (MS, BS, CS, etc.)


Section 802.16, paragraph 2:
>    And finally this document provides a
>    recommendation for choosing one link model that best suits for the
>    deployment.

  Section 6 doesn't state _a_ recommendation. It basically says that all
  three models are useful in some deployments. Not sure how useful
  this is.

3.2.3.1.  Reuse of existing standards

   This solution reuses RFC 2461, 2462, and if PPP is used, RFC 2472 and
   RFC 2516.  No changes in these protocols are required, the protocols
   must only be configured properly.

Some of these RFCs are not "Standards" - RFC2516 is an an Informational RFC Editor's submission, for example.

  Gen-ART Review by Gonzalo Camarillo.

  Acronyms (e.g., MS, BS, and MLD) should be expanded on their first use.

  The draft talks about WiMAX defining the WiMAX transport connection but
  does not provide a reference.