Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2014-09-29
Requested 2014-09-19
Authors Gang Chen , DENG Hui , Dave Michaud , Jouni Korhonen , Mohamed Boucadair
I-D last updated 2014-10-02
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Peter E. Yee (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -05 by Peter E. Yee (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Joseph A. Salowey (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Tim Chown (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tim Chown
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis by Ops Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 07)
Result Has nits
Completed 2014-10-02

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 primarily for the benefit of the operational area
directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

Overall I think the document is Ready with nits.

The subject matter of the document is both good and useful. I believe it is a
good example of the type of work that v6ops should be undertaking. The
Informational nature of the document is appropriate.

I cannot comment on some of the details of the mobile operation as it is not an
area I have high exposure to. However, the points made and the discussion at
the end in Section 7 seem well founded and appropriate, based on the
information presented. Whether it is a complete summary of issues, I cannot
say, but regardless the document appears a useful snapshot of current issues.

The draft has only required minor edits since the WGLC. There was some
discussion around the -02, e.g. on Telenor Norway’s apparent choice to only use

There are some nits to fix, around issues with the use of English language, but
these are small in number and minor, e.g. in 5.1 "If the applications can't
support IPv6, the service is likely failed.”  I don’t believe that any
corrections would lead to a change in interpreted meaning of the document.