Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-10
review-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-10-genart-lc-housley-2020-09-11-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2020-09-23
Requested 2020-09-09
Authors Fernando Gont, Suresh Krishnan, Thomas Narten, Richard Draves
Draft last updated 2020-09-11
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -10 by Russ Housley (diff)
Iotdir Telechat review of -11 by Dave Thaler
Assignment Reviewer Russ Housley 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-10-genart-lc-housley-2020-09-11
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/XWW4_5KIVKAqdtcht7w8g3dgmQI
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 11)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2020-09-11

Review
review-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-10-genart-lc-housley-2020-09-11

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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-10
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2020-09-11
IETF LC End Date: 2020-09-23
IESG Telechat date: unknown


Summary: Almost Ready


Major Concerns:

In Section 2.2, the discussion of DNS names comes out of the blue.  In
RFC 4941, there was context for this discussion that has been dropped
from this document.  Some context is needed.


Minor Concerns:

The Abstract says: "This document describes an extension that ...".
It should state what protocol is being extended.  I believe this is an
extension for SLAAC.


Nits:

Section 1, first paragraph says: "... in [RFC7721],[RFC7217], and
RFC7707."  All three should be references.

In addition, essentially this same sentence appears at the end of
Section 2.1.  I'm not sure the second one adds value.

Section 1.1, last paragraph says: '... and not to "globally reachable"
as defined in [RFC8190].'  I think you want to say that this term does
not imply "globally reachable" as defined in [RFC8190].  That is, it
might be globally reachable, but it might not.


IDnits reports:

** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section.  (See Section
   2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case
   when there are no actions for IANA.)

== The 'Obsoletes: ' line in the draft header should list only the
   _numbers_ of the RFCs which will be obsoleted by this document (if
   approved); it should not include the word 'RFC' in the list.