Telechat Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
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
Draft last updated 2020-10-19
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Christopher 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)
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,
Assignment Reviewer Sheng Jiang 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05-intdir-telechat-jiang-2020-10-19
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 07)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2020-10-19


Reviewer: Sheng Jiang
Review result: Ready with Issues


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.


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.