Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-06
review-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-06-genart-lc-campbell-2013-04-25-00

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document:  draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-06

Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2013-04-25
IETF LC End Date: 2013-04-16

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard.
There are a few minor issues which should be considered first, described in the
review.

Major issues:

None.

Minor issues:

-- section 3, third paragraph from end:

The paragraph suggests that changing the number of network interfaces should be
rare. I think it's quite common in practice for the sorts of hosts likely to
move between subnets regularly. For example, my Macbook Pro uses an external
(Thunderbolt attached) ethernet interface which regularly gets disconnected and
reconnected. Same might hold true for a USB attached wireless modem. And I have
any number of VPNs which may be active or not at any given time.

-- section 3, 2nd paragraph from end:

You describe the affects of including Network_ID in some detail. It would be
helpful to note the consequences of _not_ including it.

Nits/editorial comments:

-- section 1, 4th paragraph: "Therefore, it is vital..."

That seems a bit overstated. We're not talking about breaking the Internet
here, are we?

-- 1, 6th paragraph: "Also, they result in increased complexity..."

What sort of complexity? Implementation complexity? It's a bit confusion
because the previous sentences already talk about increased complexity of
specific sorts. It would help to mention what sort of additional complexity is
referred to here.

-- 1, paragraph 11: "This document does not update..."

How is adding an alternative algorithm _not_ an update?

--1, paragraph 12: "... may already address"

Is the "already addressing" part in question? Or is it a matter of addressing
it in some circumstances, but not others? If the latter, it would help to
elaborate.

-- 6, last paragraph: "... may mitigate..."

Not sure? Or only under some circumstances?

-- references:
 RFC1948 is obsoleted by 6528. Is there a reason to reference the obsolete
 version?