Last Call Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-eam-01
review-ietf-v6ops-siit-eam-01-opsdir-lc-bonica-2015-09-17-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-eam |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 03) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2015-09-22 | |
| Requested | 2015-09-11 | |
| Authors | Tore Anderson , Alberto Leiva | |
| I-D last updated | 2015-09-17 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -01
by Dan Romascanu
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -01 by Dan Romascanu (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -01 by Phillip Hallam-Baker (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -01 by Ron Bonica (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Ron Bonica |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-eam by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 01 (document currently at 03) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2015-09-17 |
review-ietf-v6ops-siit-eam-01-opsdir-lc-bonica-2015-09-17-00
Folks,
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 with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
Summary: Ready for publication
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
None
Nits:
The Nit Checker says:
== There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC5735-compliant IPv4 addresses
in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed.
== There are 3 instances of lines with non-RFC3849-compliant IPv6 addresses
in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed.
I understand why you had to break the rule for 0/0. But could the IPv6
addresses have been taken from documentation space?
Ron Bonica