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 revision | 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 | |
| Authors | Jouni Korhonen , Jari Arkko , Teemu Savolainen , Suresh Krishnan | |
| I-D 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 | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 06) | |
| Result | Ready w/nits | |
| Completed | 2013-08-30 |
review-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis-03-genart-lc-melnikov-2013-08-30-00
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.