Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-02

Request Review of draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-03-06
Requested 2018-02-05
Authors Ole Trøan
I-D last updated 2018-02-26
Completed reviews Intdir Early review of -02 by Carlos J. Bernardos (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -02 by Al Morton (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -02 by Barry Leiba (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -02 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dan Romascanu
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 04)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2018-02-26
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


Document: draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-02
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 2018-02-26
IETF LC End Date: 2018-03-06
IESG Telechat date: 2018-04-05


This is a simple and straightforward document, fixing an omission in RFC 6275,
which updated RFC 4861 without explicitly marking it as such,  and failed to
create a registry to avoid conflicts. The content of the document looks fine,
but there are several minor issues that I would recommend to be considered and
discussed before approval and publication.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

1. As this document fixes a problem created by RFC 6275 which was was not
marked as updating RFC 4861, and did not create a registry to avoid conflicts,
it looks like this RFC (if approved) should also update RFC 6275.

2. Section 3 includes a reference to [IANA-TBD] which is not defined in the

3. As the new registry contains one bit defined by RFC 6275, it seems that
[RFC6275] should also be a Normative Reference.

4. Section 4 - It would be good to capitalize Standards Action, and refer to
RFC 8126 as reference (also to be added)

Nits/editorial comments:

1. The Abstract and the Introduction contain a sentence with broken syntax:

'The purpose of this document is to request that IANA to create a new registry

2. Several acronyms in the document are not explicitly expanded: ND, PIO, NDP