Telechat Review of draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-02
review-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-02-genart-telechat-romascanu-2018-02-26-00
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 |
review-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-02-genart-telechat-romascanu-2018-02-26-00
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 <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. 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 Summary: 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 document. 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