Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-10

Request Review of draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-05-15
Requested 2013-05-02
Authors Arifumi Matsumoto, 藤﨑 智宏, Tim Chown
Draft last updated 2013-05-21
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -10 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Dan Harkins (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-10-genart-lc-holmberg-2013-05-21
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 13)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2013-05-21


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <>.

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-10.txt
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 20 May 2013
IETF LC End Date: 15 May 20, 2013
IESG Telechat date: N/A

Summary: The draft is ready for publication, with a couple of minor editorial comments.

Major issues: -

Minor issues: -

Nits/editorial comments:


The document is inconsistent when referencing other RFCs. It uses either "RFC XXXX [RFCXXXX]", "RFC XXXX" or "[RFCXXXX]". I would suggest to use consistent way of referencing other RFCs.


In section 2, you use "our" and "we" terminology, which could be a little confusing. If you are e.g. talking about the context/scope of the draft, I think you should use "this document", or something. If you talk about some background work/studies that has been done, maybe you could talk about "the authors", or something.

Or, have I misunderstood something?