Telechat Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05
review-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05-intdir-telechat-jiang-2020-10-19-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Telechat Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2020-10-20
Requested 2020-10-12
Requested by Éric Vyncke
Authors Fernando Gont , Jan Zorz , Richard Patterson , Bernie Volz
I-D last updated 2020-10-19
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Christopher A. Wood (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Pete Resnick (diff)
Iotdir Telechat review of -05 by Suresh Krishnan (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -05 by Sheng Jiang (diff)
Comments 
I would appreciate a review on this 11-page document.
You may want to have the same reviewer for draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum and draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum.
Thank you,
-éric
Assignment Reviewer Sheng Jiang
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/6jYNkBMOJ5NuxUZymP3E2G9gDtA
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 08)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2020-10-19
review-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05-intdir-telechat-jiang-2020-10-19-00
Reviewer: Sheng Jiang
Review result: Ready with Issues

Hi,

I have reviewed this document as part of the Internet Area directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving 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.

draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05

Overall Summary:

This draft is a document that intents to be an Informational  RFC. This
document gives some recommendation to  improve the reaction and performance of
Customer Edge Routers in the IPv6 renumbering events.  It updates RFC7084.

Overall this is a well written document. There is a small Nit: in the
information reference, [I-D.gont-6man-slaac-renum] has been listed twice.

However, I have a more fundamental question. It may be easily addressed by AD
saying it was not an issue: as an informational document, it should only give
information or recommendation to the readers or implementors. However, this
document has a lot of "MUST", which is too strong and I think it should only
appear in Standard Stack or BCP documents. If so, this document may need
revise, even rework in the WG.

Regards,

Sheng