Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-02
review-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-02-genart-lc-romascanu-2022-03-15-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2022-03-18
Requested 2022-03-04
Authors Gábor Lencse , Jordi Palet Martinez , Lee Howard , Richard Patterson , Ian Farrer
Draft last updated 2022-03-15
Completed reviews Tsvart Last Call review of -02 by Brian Trammell (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Joseph A. Salowey (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -02 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dan Romascanu
State Completed
Review review-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-02-genart-lc-romascanu-2022-03-15
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/0LD7N9OxJR4KupJKbaISQ9518ng
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 04)
Result Ready with Nits
Completed 2022-03-15
review-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-02-genart-lc-romascanu-2022-03-15-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-02
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 2022-03-15
IETF LC End Date: 2022-03-18
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:

Ready with Nits

(this review applies to both Gen-ART and OPSDIR.

This is an informational document reviewing advantages and disadvantages of the
five most prominent IPv4aaS technologies.

The document is explicitly targeting network operators, so it is useful and
recommended that operators dealing with one or more of these technologies or
evaluating their introduction read it carefully. I liked Section 4.5 which
includes some very useful Typical Deployment and Traffic Volume Considerations
and Section 5. Performance Considerations.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

1. I am not sure whether this Informational document needs any of the
capitalized key words as described in BCP14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] mentioned in
Section 1.1

2. Another pass to make sure that acronyms are expanded at first occurrence
would be useful. For exemple: UE in section 2.1

3. It is not clear how Table 2 should be read. What  means an X? I guess it is
supposed to say 'it applies, no data model' but this should be explained

4. Section 4.4.1 - I am slightly uncomfortable with the URLs for free
open-source implementations being included in the text. Maybe an Appendix would
be a better place. Or at least use informative references.