Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-nd-04
review-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-nd-04-genart-lc-dupont-2017-01-24-01

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-bmwg-ipv6-nd-04.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20170116
IETF LC End Date: 20170123
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready with nits

Major issues: none

Minor issues: the title (and the Abstract) is a bit misleading: it is
not the benchmarking of the ND protocol which has ~12 different
functions but the benchmarking of a particular function on a router.
Now it is the critical one so my concern is more the document is
limited to only this one...

Nits/editorial comments: 
 - ToC page 2 and 7 page 12: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments

 - 1 page 2: the limit to a router explains why the verb send is
  replaced by forward... and why there is nothing about redirection

 - 1 page 2: determine the IPv6 next-hop's link-layer address
  -> determine the outgoing interface and the IPv6 next-hop's
   link-layer address

 - 2.2.1 page 5: et cetera -> etc

 - 3.1.2 page 9 (twice) and 3.2.2 page 10; recieved -> received

 - 3.1.2 page 9: IMHO you should define the "initial" term (for final
  the meaning is obvious)
   
 - 3.2.1 page 10: (i.e.,IPv6 -> (i.e., IPv6

 - 3.2.2 page 10: in "packets-received will either be
   equal to zero or packets-received." the last received -> sent.

Regards

Francis.Dupont at fdupont.fr