Last Call Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements-07
review-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements-07-genart-lc-krishnan-2013-05-08-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 09) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2013-05-06 | |
Requested | 2013-04-25 | |
Authors | Martin Thomson , James Winterbottom | |
I-D last updated | 2013-05-08 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -07
by Suresh Krishnan
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -07 by Suresh Krishnan (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Suresh Krishnan |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 07 (document currently at 09) | |
Result | Almost ready | |
Completed | 2013-05-08 |
review-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements-07-genart-lc-krishnan-2013-05-08-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-ietf-geopriv-held-measurements-07 For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html >. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard, but I have a few minor comments that you may wish to address. * Section 5.2 - The Interface-Id option is the DHCPv6 equivalent of the circuit identifier defined in RFC3046. Please add a reference to Section 22.18 of RFC3315 that describes this option. - Is there any specific reason that the giaddr is being specified using the IPv4-mapped IPv6 address format? From my reading giaddr is of type bt:ipAddressType and it allows specification of both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses natively. * Section 8.3 Page 44 IPv4-compatible addresses have been deprecated in the IPv6 addressing architecture (RFC4291) and need not be supported here. * Section 8.7 Page 53 I think there may be an off-by-one error here. <xs:maxInclusive value="268435456"/> Shouldn't this be <xs:maxInclusive value="268435455"/> so that the largest value will fit in 28 bits? Thanks Suresh