Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-09

Request Review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis
Requested rev. no specific revision
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-06-25
Requested 2018-06-11
Other Reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Scott Bradner (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -08 by Russ White (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Tobias Gondrom
Tsvart Telechat review of -08 by Magnus Westerlund (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Vijay Gurbani
Review review-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-09-genart-lc-gurbani-2018-07-16
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 09
Review result Ready with Nits
Draft last updated 2018-07-16
Review completed: 2018-07-16


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


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/