Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-02
review-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-02-genart-lc-dupont-2014-10-29-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-10-27
Requested 2014-10-16
Authors Wesley George , Carlos Pignataro
I-D last updated 2014-10-29
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -03 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Tobias Gondrom (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Tim Chown (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -01 by Alvaro Retana (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Francis Dupont
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 04)
Result Ready
Completed 2014-10-29
review-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-02-genart-lc-dupont-2014-10-29-00
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-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-03.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20141025
IETF LC End Date: 20141027
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:
 - ToC page 2 and 5 page 18: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments

 - 3.2.6 page 8: singaling -> signaling

 - 3.3.1 page 9: e.g. -> e.g.,

 - 3.3.2.4.1 pages 11 and 12: the conclusion (Gap: None) doesn't seem
  very in phase with the text. Perhaps it is another case of "out of scope
  known gap"?

 - 3.4.2 page 15 (UK vs US spelling): behaviour -> behavior

 - 4 page 17: Identifed -> Identified

 - 6 pages 18 and 19, Authors' Addresses page 26: I don't like
  ISO IS 3166 two letter codes used in postal addresses but it seems
  to be what the new RFC required...

Regards

Francis.Dupont at fdupont.fr

PS: I reviewed the 02 version but now the 03 was published so I updated
my comments. rfcdiff shows 03 is better than 02 at the exception of:
 - in 3.3.1.1 page 9 perhaps a missing '<' as I can see:
    ... (see xref    
    target="LDP"/>).
PPS: it could be useful to have a checklist of all RFCs which should
be updated but it is more a task for the WG than something to put
in the document (I don't follow the WG so I don't know if it already
exists :-).