Telechat Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07
review-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07-genart-telechat-halpern-2017-08-03-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-08-15
Requested 2017-07-31
Authors John Jason Brzozowski , Gunter Van de Velde
I-D last updated 2017-08-03
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 Telechat review on draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 13)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2017-08-03
review-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07-genart-telechat-halpern-2017-08-03-00
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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

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-07
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2017-08-03
IETF LC End Date: 2017-06-06
IESG Telechat date: 2017-08-17

Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Best Common practice RFC<
although there are some issues to be considered.

Major issues:
    N/A

Minor issues:
    The issue of status for the document (BCP vs Informational) is for the IESG
    to conclude.  However, even if it is a BCP, as I understand the purpose,
    this document is intended to describe the practices to be used when a
    provider has decided to deploy a /64 per host.  The wording that is chosen
    throughout the document makes it appear that the underlying decision about
    such a deployment is also a recommended practice.

Nits/editorial comments:
    N/A