Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-04
review-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-04-opsdir-lc-jiang-2018-05-21-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2018-05-21
Requested 2018-05-07
Authors Jen Linkova , Massimiliano Stucchi
Draft last updated 2018-05-21
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -04 by Ravi Singh (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Wassim Haddad (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Sheng Jiang (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -05 by Wassim Haddad (diff)
Tsvart Telechat review of -05 by Yoshifumi Nishida (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -05 by Sheng Jiang (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Sheng Jiang
State Completed
Review review-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-04-opsdir-lc-jiang-2018-05-21
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 08)
Result Has Issues
Completed 2018-05-21
review-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-04-opsdir-lc-jiang-2018-05-21-00
Reviewer: Sheng Jiang
Review result: Has Issues

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments
were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF
drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD
reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like any other last call comments.

This Informational document describes a mechanism that uses the conditional
Router Advertisements for Enterprise Multihoming in which an enterprise network
up-links to multiple ISPs using an address space assigned by an ISP.

Major issue: no.

Minor issue: There are many unused reference. However, they are not simple Nits
and cannot be fixed by deleting them from reference list. Many of these unused
reference are really relevant and should have some content to describe the
relationship with the mechanism or scenario of the document, such as RFC6296
NAT66, etc.

Regards,

Sheng