Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-address-generation-privacy-07
review-ietf-6man-ipv6-address-generation-privacy-07-opsdir-lc-wu-2015-07-13-00

I have reviewed draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-address-generation-privacy-07 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.



Short Summary

This document discusses how other existing IIDs generating mechanism mitigate
four types of threats against

IEEE-identifier-based IIDs. It is well written. I believe the document is ready
for publication and there are no operational or

management concerns in a document. I have a few minor comments that are likely
to be trivial.



1.      Section 4.1

"

   As [RFC4941] explains,



      "[t]he  use of a non-changing interface identifier to form

      addresses is a specific instance of the more general case where a

      constant identifier is reused over an extended period of time and

      in multiple independent activities.

"

s/[t]he/The

2.      Run idnits too, it produces

"

  Checking references for intended status: Informational

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------



  -- Duplicate reference: RFC3972, mentioned in 'CGA-IPR', was also mentioned

     in 'RFC3972'.



  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1971

     (Obsoleted by RFC 2462)



  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1972

     (Obsoleted by RFC 2464)



  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3041

     (Obsoleted by RFC 4941)



  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3484

     (Obsoleted by RFC 6724)



"

I am wondering whether referencing all of these obsolete informational
reference is intentional? Why not just use replacing RFC? E.g., RFC3041



-Qin