Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-09
review-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-09-genart-lc-gurbani-2018-07-16-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-06-25
Requested 2018-06-11
Authors Tim Chown , John A. Loughney , Timothy Winters
I-D last updated 2018-07-16
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Scott O. Bradner (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -08 by Russ White (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Vijay K. Gurbani
Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Tobias Gondrom
Tsvart Telechat review of -08 by Magnus Westerlund (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Vijay K. Gurbani
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 09
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2018-07-16
review-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-09-genart-lc-gurbani-2018-07-16-00
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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-09
Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani
Review Date: 2018-07-16
IETF LC End Date: 2018-06-25
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready with nits.

Major issues: None.

Minor issues: None.

Nits/editorial comments:
- S5.2: last paragraph, s/header can not/header cannot/
  (I understand that technically these are similar, however, 'cannot' is
   preferred for more formal writing styles like the RFC series.)

- S5.3: first paragraph, s/the processing of/the processing burden of/

- S5.3: second paragraph, s/if the more than/if more than/

- S14.3, second paragraph: s/In simple deployments,/In simple deployments/

- S14.3, third paragraph: s/complex deployment scenarios, such as/complex
deployment scenarios such as/

(there are a number of places where such gratuitous commas are used, perhaps a
good round of edit by the authors will eliminate these)

- S15, last paragraph: s/it SHOULD want to/SHOULD/