Telechat Review of draft-ietf-pcp-nat64-prefix64-05
review-ietf-pcp-nat64-prefix64-05-genart-telechat-sparks-2014-03-10-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-pcp-nat64-prefix64
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-02-18
Requested 2014-02-06
Draft last updated 2014-03-10
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -05 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Secdir Early review of -04 by Steve Hanna (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pcp-nat64-prefix64-05-genart-telechat-sparks-2014-03-10
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 06)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2014-03-10

Review
review-ietf-pcp-nat64-prefix64-05-genart-telechat-sparks-2014-03-10

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-pcp-nat64-prefix64-04
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 3-Jan-2014
IETF LC End Date: 4-Jan-2014
IESG Telechat date: Unknown

Summary: Ready with Nits

Nits/editorial comments:

There are several references to expired drafts (some very expired).
If those are not going to progress, the details you wanted to call out 
would be better moved here.

It's not clear which of the results in nat64-experiments you are 
pointing to for support for this document.
Is the reference necessary? If so, can it be made more specific.

In section 4.1, you restate the allowed values for length from RFC6052. 
Consider making the statement
even clearer that these values are a consequence of RFC6052 and aren't 
being defined by this document.
Something like "The allowed values are specified in RFC6052 (currently 
4,5,6,7,8,12).
(I almost didn't include this since that set's not likely to change, but 
somebody might copy the style...)

RjS