Last Call Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-02
review-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-02-genart-lc-halpern-2017-04-13-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-02
Requested rev. 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
Other Reviews 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 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 Halpern (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Joel Halpern
Review review-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-02-genart-lc-halpern-2017-04-13
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/gPjYlBO7UqAiyMf53LIA8mcOzb0
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 13)
Review result Ready with Issues
Last updated 2017-04-13

Review
review-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-02-genart-lc-halpern-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

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

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.