Last Call Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-02
review-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-02-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-09-17-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 03) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2015-09-22 | |
| Requested | 2015-09-11 | |
| Authors | Tore Anderson | |
| I-D last updated | 2015-09-17 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -02
by Christer Holmberg
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Tobias Gondrom (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Qin Wu (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Christer Holmberg |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 02 (document currently at 03) | |
| Result | Ready w/nits | |
| Completed | 2015-09-17 |
review-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-02-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-09-17-00
Re-send with correct IETF tools e-mail address. From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg Sent: 17. syyskuuta 2015 10:56 To: gen-art at ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-02.all at tools.ietf.org Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-02 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> Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-02.txt Reviewer: Christer Holmberg Review Date: 17 September 2015 IETF LC End Date: 22 September 2015 IETF Telechat Date: N/A Summary: The document is well written, and almost ready for publication. However, there are a few editorial nits that I ask the author to address. Major Issues: None Minor Issues: None Editorial Issues: Section 1 (Introduction): --------------------------------- Q1_1: In a few places the ‘BR’ abbreviation is used, but it is not enhanced until section 2. Please enhance on first occurrence in section 1. Q1_2: In a few places the ‘BR’ abbreviation is used, but it is not enhanced until section 2. Please enhance on first occurrence in section 1. The text says: “o To ensure that that the legacy users' IPv4 addresses remain visible to the nodes and applications.” …and: “This ensures that there is no loss of information; the end-user's IPv4 source address remains available to the application, allowing” It may be obvious, but would it be possible to somehow make it more clear that the text is not (I assume) talking about the application running on the IPv4 node, but an application running in an IPv6 network? In other parts of the document it is more clear. E.g. in section 3.1 the text says: “application running on the IPv6-only server”, Section 6 (IANA Considerations): ---------------------------------------- Q6_1: Do we normally remove the section if there are no requests from IANA? Personally I prefer to keep the explicit “This draft makes no request of the IANA.” sentence.