Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07
review-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07-secdir-lc-salz-2017-02-23-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2017-03-01
Requested 2017-02-01
Other Reviews Intdir Early review of -06 by Brian Haberman (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -07 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Menachem Dodge (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -07 by John Drake (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Rich Salz
Review review-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07-secdir-lc-salz-2017-02-23
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/kBf8-LxJAkCSeG4CAXIX759wZmI
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 09)
Review result Has Nits
Draft last updated 2017-02-23
Review completed: 2017-02-23

Review
review-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07-secdir-lc-salz-2017-02-23

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

Summary: ready with nits.

Sec 2.1, What's the meaning of scope?

Sec 2.2.3, Example 3, should the incorrect example be ":2:1" (i.e., add a missing colon and digit two)
Is it worth mentioning that :: is only valid for the ipv6 syntax and not the dotted ipv4 syntax?  (Just asking, not recommending)

Sec 2.4.1, penultimate paragraph:   looks like some words got chopped from the middle line?

The security section is fine.

--
Senior Architect, Akamai Technologies
Member, OpenSSL Dev Team
IM: richsalz@jabber.at Twitter: RichSalz