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

Request Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis
Requested rev. 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, Hui Deng, Dave Michaud, Jouni Korhonen, Mohamed Boucadair
Draft last updated 2014-10-02
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Peter Yee (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -05 by Peter Yee (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Joseph Salowey (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Tim Chown (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tim Chown 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis-05-opsdir-lc-chown-2014-10-02
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 07)
Review result Has Nits
Review 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 IPv6 PDP.

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.