Telechat Review of draft-bchv-rfc6890bis-06
review-bchv-rfc6890bis-06-genart-telechat-kyzivat-2017-04-22-00
Request | Review of | draft-bchv-rfc6890bis |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 07) | |
Type | Telechat Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2017-04-25 | |
Requested | 2017-04-07 | |
Authors | Ron Bonica , Michelle Cotton , Brian Haberman , Leo Vegoda | |
I-D last updated | 2017-04-22 | |
Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Last Call review of -04
by Dan Frost
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Paul Kyzivat (diff) Secdir Telechat review of -06 by Brian Weis (diff) Genart Telechat review of -06 by Paul Kyzivat (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Paul Kyzivat |
State | Completed | |
Review |
review-bchv-rfc6890bis-06-genart-telechat-kyzivat-2017-04-22
|
|
Reviewed revision | 06 (document currently at 07) | |
Result | Ready with Nits | |
Completed | 2017-04-22 |
review-bchv-rfc6890bis-06-genart-telechat-kyzivat-2017-04-22-00
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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. For more information, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-bchv-rfc6890bis-06 Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat Review Date: 2017-04-22 IETF LC End Date: 2017-03-10 IESG Telechat date: 2017-04-25 Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. General Comments: This version is *much* easier to understand than the -04 version that I previously reviewed. Issues: Major: 0 Minor: 0 Nits: 1 (1) Nit: In section 2.3 the requested handling of footnotes is confusing. IIUC, the intent is: - add a new footnote between the existing [1] and [2]; - add a new footnote at the end after the existing [5]; - renumber the footnotes sequentially (from [1] to [7]); - adjust all the existing footnote references to refer to the same footnote as previously, but using the new numbering; - then, add references to the new footnotes [2] and [7] to the entries for TEREDO and Unique-Local. It took me a few readings of the current text to convince myself that is what you intended. It would be better to be more explicit about it.