Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6man-enhanced-dad-12
review-ietf-6man-enhanced-dad-12-opsdir-lc-chown-2015-03-11-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-6man-enhanced-dad |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 15) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2015-03-03 | |
| Requested | 2015-01-31 | |
| Authors | Rajiv Asati , Hemant Singh , Wes Beebee , Carlos Pignataro , Eli Dart , Wesley George | |
| Draft last updated | 2015-03-11 | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -12
by
Hilarie Orman
(diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -12 by Tim Chown (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Tim Chown |
| State | Completed | |
| Review |
review-ietf-6man-enhanced-dad-12-opsdir-lc-chown-2015-03-11
|
|
| Reviewed revision | 12 (document currently at 15) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2015-03-11 |
review-ietf-6man-enhanced-dad-12-opsdir-lc-chown-2015-03-11-00
Hi, I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. I believe this draft is on the IESG telechat agenda for tomorrow. There have been a minor update from -13 to -14 in the last couple of days to clarify the RFCs that the draft updates, which now seems resolved between the advice from the two ADs in question. My view is that the document is Ready. Very minor nits: The last sentence of section 1 is a little clumsy, and perhaps unnecessary: " The Cha nges to RFC 4861 section includes an update to RFC 4861." The first paragraph in the Problem Statement could be broken into two or three. Tim