Last Call Review of draft-bao-v6ops-rfc6145bis-05
review-bao-v6ops-rfc6145bis-05-genart-lc-korhonen-2016-02-25-00

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area 


Review Team


(Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the 


IETF


Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call 


comments. For



more information, please see the FAQ at
<​ 

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

General:



This draft is ready for publication as a Standards Track RFC, but has 


few nits I



would like to get clarification first.

The IDnits throws complains that to me can be fixed by the RFC editor (or
outdated references automatically when a new revision is generated) and the
complaints regarding non-compliant RFC3849 & RFC5737 addresses seem to be
bogus.

Comments:

* Lines 480 and 928 have "advertised MTU", which not really immediately
  obvious what it means and where it comes from. I would suggest using
  the exactly same terminology as used in RFC4443 and RFC4884 when
  referring to values taken from those, for example.

* Line 367: what is the situation when SHOULD takes place i.e., a packet
  with "illegal" source address is not silently discarded? Clarify the
  case.

* Line 367: s/siletly drop/silently discard

* Lines 350, 389-390: payload length is said here to include IPv4 options,
  if present. However, earlier in lines 373-375 it says IPv4 options
  MUST be ignored so options can never be "if present", right? Suggest
  aligning the text for consistency if the options are never present in
  the  translated messages.

* Line 588: what happens to translated IP packet with illegal source
  addresses? Is this the case for SHOULD referred in line 367?

- Jouni