Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs-04
review-ietf-6man-resilient-rs-04-opsdir-lc-ersue-2015-04-09-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2015-04-07
Requested 2015-02-04
Authors Suresh Krishnan , Dmitry Anipko , Dave Thaler
I-D last updated 2015-04-09
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Brian E. Carpenter (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -05 by Brian E. Carpenter (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Mehmet Ersue (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -04 by Les Ginsberg (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Mehmet Ersue
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs by Ops Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 06)
Result Has nits
Completed 2015-04-09
review-ietf-6man-resilient-rs-04-opsdir-lc-ersue-2015-04-09-00

I reviewed the document "Packet loss resiliency for Router Solicitations"
(draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs-05.txt) as part of the Operational directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the operational area
directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.



Intended status: Proposed Standard

Updates: RFC4861 (if approved)

Current draft status: IESG Evaluation

IANA Review State: IANA OK - No Actions Needed

IANA Action State: None



Summary: The document specifies a mechanism for hosts to cope with the loss of
the initial Router Solicitations.



I don't see any issues from the operations and management pov.



There are two nits in the draft:



** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5214



== The 'Updates: ' line in the draft header should list only the _numbers_

     of the RFCs which will be updated by this document (if approved); it

     should not include the word 'RFC' in the list.



Cheers,

Mehmet