Last Call Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-03
review-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-03-genart-lc-halpern-2017-05-25-00
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 | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2017-06-06 | |
Requested | 2017-05-23 | |
Authors | John Jason Brzozowski , Gunter Van de Velde | |
I-D last updated | 2017-05-25 | |
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 | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 13) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2017-05-25 |
review-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-03-genart-lc-halpern-2017-05-25-00
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-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-?? Reviewer: Joel Halpern Review Date: 2017-05-25 IETF LC End Date: 2017-06-06 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: This document is ready for publication as an RFC Major issues: N/A Minor issues: I will leave the decision on the appropriate status of this document to the IESG. I note that sections, for example the third paragraph of section 3, are currently written as if the IETF is recommending this practice, rather than merely describing how to do this when it is desired. Whether this is appropriate is again a call for the members of the IESG. Nits/editorial comments: