Last Call Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis-03
review-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis-03-genart-lc-melnikov-2013-08-30-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-09-02
Requested 2013-08-22
Draft last updated 2013-08-30
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -03 by Alexey Melnikov (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -04 by Alexey Melnikov (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Charlie Kaufman (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Alexey Melnikov
State Completed
Review review-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis-03-genart-lc-melnikov-2013-08-30
Reviewed rev. 03 (document currently at 06)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2013-08-30

Review
review-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis-03-genart-lc-melnikov-2013-08-30

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

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>



Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 


you may receive.




Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis-03
Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov
Review Date: 30 August 2013
IETF LC End Date: 2 September 2013
IESG Telechat date: 12 September 2013

Summary: Ready with nits.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits:

In 1.1

This document complements the IPv6 node requirements [RFC6434] in
   places where clarifications are needed the with discussion on the use

Delete "the" before "with"?

   of these selected IPv6 specifications when operating over a cellular
   interface.

In 2.2:

RTP and SIP need Informative references.

In 2.4:

PPP needs an Informative reference.

Also, where is IPv6CP defined?


Appendix B.  Changes to RFC 3316



I think that before publication this section needs to be reworked a bit 


to have a single list of changes, referencing particular draft versions 


is not going to be very useful in the final RFC.