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
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2017-06-06
Requested 2017-05-23
Authors John Jason Brzozowski , Gunter Van de Velde
Draft last updated 2017-06-20
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 Sarah Banks
State Completed
Review review-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-02-opsdir-lc-banks-2017-06-20
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 13)
Result Has Nits
Completed 2017-06-20
        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 to go, with comments

No major issues, however, the document reads to me as if we're suggesting that
operators assign unique prefixes//64s to hosts; I'm not sure that's the
intention here, and a bit more text around the abstract/introduction sections
would help clarify that.

Also, nits isn't clean. yes, I know you probably intend to clean that up (no
pun intended) but I do like to see drafts come into last call with clean nits,
so there you go. :) The references to RFC2119 aren't a big deal to resolve.