Last Call Review of draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6-09
review-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6-09-genart-lc-shirazipour-2015-07-15-00

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-intarea-gre-ipv6-10

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

Review Date: 2015-07-07

IETF LC End Date: 2015-07-09

IESG Telechat date: NA





Summary:

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

---

Meral Shirazipour

Ericsson

Research

www.ericsson.com