Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-02

Request Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-02
Requested revision 02 (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-04-28
Requested 2017-04-12
Requested by Ron Bonica
Authors John Jason Brzozowski , Gunter Van de Velde
Draft last updated 2017-04-13
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Intdir Last Call review of -02 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Tim Chown (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -03 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Watson Ladd (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Sarah Banks (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -07 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joel M. Halpern
State Completed
Review review-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-02-genart-lc-halpern-2017-04-13
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 13)
Result Ready with Issues
Completed 2017-04-13
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


Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-??
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2017-04-13
IETF LC End Date: None
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This document is almsot ready for publication as an RFC.

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues:
    The proposed status seems questionable.  We as a community are not
    recommending that operators assign unique prefixes to hosts.  This document
    is saying "if you want to do that, here is a way, using existing tools, to
    make that work."  The document also recommends specific setting of other
    flags (the O flag in the RA, for example) that are not closely coupled to
    the particular topic.  This looks like an ordinary Informational RFC.  I
    would have no concern with this being published with that label.

Nits/editorial comments:
    As per the nits checker, the document uses RFC 2119 terminology.  The usage
    seems quite appropriate.  The document should therefore cite RFC 2119.
    Also, as per the nits checker, the document references RFC 6106.  It should
    reference RFC 8106.