Last Call Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-03-09
Requested 2016-02-25
Authors Lorenzo Colitti, Vinton Cerf, Stuart Cheshire, David Schinazi
Draft last updated 2016-04-07
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Roni Even (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Victor Kuarsingh (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -06 by Victor Kuarsingh (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -05 by Geoff Huston (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Roni Even
State Completed
Review review-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-05-genart-lc-even-2016-04-07
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 07)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2016-04-07


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.





Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2016–3-8

IETF LC End Date: 2016–3-9

IESG Telechat date: 


Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a BCP RFC





Major issues:



Minor issues:


 Nits/editorial comments:

Small question: In section 6 last bullet “While [RFC3633] assumes that the DHCPv6 client is a router, DHCPv6 PD itself does not require that the client forward IPv6 packets not addressed to itself, and thus does not require that the client be an IPv6 router as defined in [RFC2460].”

Is this a good practice to recommend?

Also I understand that in the here the recommendation is that all IPv6 packets will be addressed to the DHCPv6 client (not a router) and this is why he will not forward them.