Last Call Review of draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6-09

Request Review of draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-07-09
Requested 2015-06-25
Authors Carlos Pignataro, Ron Bonica, Suresh Krishnan
Draft last updated 2015-07-15
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -09 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Meral Shirazipour
State Completed
Review review-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6-09-genart-lc-shirazipour-2015-07-15
Reviewed rev. 09 (document currently at 14)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2015-07-15


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



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


Document: draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6-10

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

Review Date: 2015-07-07

IETF LC End Date: 2015-07-09

IESG Telechat date: NA




This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC, some editorial comments below.


Major issues:


Minor issues:


Nits/editorial comments:

-[Page 3], Section 2.1, "The GRE ingress node SHOULD set the Checksum Present field to zero."

->It would be clearer to say "Checksum Present field in the GRE Header"


-[Page 4], Section 2.1, "As per RFC 2784, the GRE egress..." ----suggestion add section----> "As per RFC 2784 Section 2.2, the GRE..."


-[Page 4], Section 3 title, "3.  IPv6 As GRE Payload" ----suggestion small a----> "3.  IPv6 as GRE Payload"


-[Page 5], last sentence missing "." :  "GRE egress"


-[Page 6], Section 4 title, "4.  IPv6 As GRE Delivery Protocol" ----suggestion small a----> "4.  IPv6 as GRE Delivery Protocol"


-[Page 7], Section 4.3

This section was not clear to me, but I don’t have any suggestion. I.e. by "cannot fragment the IPv6 delivery header", do we mean delivery header and what comes after (GRE header and Payload)?

Do we have to be specific or can we just say "does not support fragmentation"?


-[Page 7], Section 6, "More generically,.."---suggestion> "More generally, ..."



Best Regards,



Meral Shirazipour