Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
review-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07-opsdir-lc-dodge-2017-05-02-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2017-03-01
Requested 2017-02-01
Other Reviews Intdir Early review of -06 by Brian Haberman (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Rich Salz (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -07 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -07 by John Drake (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Menachem Dodge
Review review-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07-opsdir-lc-dodge-2017-05-02
Posted at https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ops-dir/current/msg02626.html
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 09)
Review result Has Nits
Draft last updated 2017-05-02
Review completed: 2017-05-02

Review
review-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07-opsdir-lc-dodge-2017-05-02

Reviewer: Menachem Dodge
Review result: Has Nits
Intended Status: Standards Track
Obsoletes: 4291 (if approved)

Hi all,

I have reviewed draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-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.

“This document defines the addressing architecture of the IP Version 6 protocol. It includes the basic formats for the various
types of IPv6 addresses (unicast, anycast, and multicast).

My overall view of the document is 'Ready with nits' for publication.

Technical
No.


Editorial 


The Nit tool has found the following:

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == There are 16 instances of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6
     addresses in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should
     be changed.


  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == Line 237 has weird spacing: '...address  is an...'


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7217' is defined on line 1109, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of
     draft-ietf-6man-rfc2460bis-08

  -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref.
     'I-D.ietf-6man-rfc2460bis' 

  -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3513
     (Obsoleted by RFC 4291)

===================

In addition I have the following:

Section 2.4.1 - Second Paragraph -- suggest to add 'the'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OLD: Interface IDs must be viewed outside of the node that created Interface ID as an opaque bit string without any internal structure
SUGGEST: Interface IDs must be viewed outside of the node that created the Interface ID as an opaque bit string without any internal structure
Section 2.4.1 - FourthParagraph -- suggest to clarify
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OLD: As noted in Section 2.4, all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long.
SUGGEST: As noted in Section 2.4, the Interface IDs of all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary value 000, are required to be 64 bits long.

Thank you kindly,

Menachem Dodge