Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-04
review-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-04-rtgdir-lc-singh-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 Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2018-05-21
Requested 2018-05-07
Requested by Alvaro Retana
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 Ravi Singh
State Completed
Review review-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-04-rtgdir-lc-singh-2018-05-21
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 08)
Result Has Nits
Completed 2018-05-21
review-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-04-rtgdir-lc-singh-2018-05-21-00
Hello,
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments
are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could
consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive,
and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras
Reviewer: Ravi Singh
Review Date: May 21, 2018
Intended Status: Informational
Summary: This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
should be considered prior to publication.

Nits:
1. For readability sake for wider audiences, first usage of acronym in the
draft should expand the acronym even though the usage of many of these acronyms
is pretty common:
      a. Section 3.1.2: RDNSS, SLAAC, CPE
      b. 3.2.6: ULA
      c. 3.2.7: DAD
      d. 3.3: SDN, RTT

2. Typo corrections:
     a. POI -> PIO
                3.1.2: 2 occurrences
                3.2.4 & 3.2.7: 2 occurrences each
    b. 3Section .2.6:
               "algorith" - > "algorithm"

    c. In section 3.1.2:

         "address selected by a host as described in Section 3.1.2.  However,"
         -> "address selected by a host as described in Section 3.1.1. 
         However,"

   d. Section 3.2.3: typo: quoted section # needs correction.
          " correct uplink based on the source address as described in Section
          3.2.1."
           ->
         "correct uplink based on the source address as described in Section
         3.1.1."

3.  Section 3.2.5:
     "For simplicity, all topologies below show the ISP uplinks terminated"
     ->
     "For simplicity, all topologies above show the ISP uplinks terminated" ?

4. Section 3.3 & 3.4: the text seems to indicate that this draft if proposing
some solution, even though as indicated in this draft's abstract….the solution
being referenced is in ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming and this draft if
describing the use of that solution in sample scenarios. Slight rewording of
text should help to address this.

Regards
Ravi