Telechat Review of draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-02
review-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-02-genart-telechat-romascanu-2018-02-26-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-03-06
Requested 2018-02-05
Other Reviews Intdir Early review of -02 by Carlos Bernardos (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -02 by Al Morton (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -02 by Barry Leiba (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Dan Romascanu
Review review-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-02-genart-telechat-romascanu-2018-02-26
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/GsnLJkc1szfZ7qV5r4JKc7uW4xc
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 04)
Review result Almost Ready
Draft last updated 2018-02-26
Review completed: 2018-02-26

Review
review-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-02-genart-telechat-romascanu-2018-02-26

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-6man-ndpioiana-02
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 2018-02-26
IETF LC End Date: 2018-03-06
IESG Telechat date: 2018-04-05

Summary:

This is a simple and straightforward document, fixing an omission in RFC 6275, which updated RFC 4861 without explicitly marking it as such,  and failed to create a registry to avoid conflicts. The content of the document looks fine, but there are several minor issues that I would recommend to be considered and discussed before approval and publication. 

Major issues:

Minor issues:

1. As this document fixes a problem created by RFC 6275 which was was not marked as updating RFC 4861, and did not create a registry to avoid conflicts, it looks like this RFC (if approved) should also update RFC 6275. 

2. Section 3 includes a reference to [IANA-TBD] which is not defined in the document. 

3. As the new registry contains one bit defined by RFC 6275, it seems that [RFC6275] should also be a Normative Reference. 

4. Section 4 - It would be good to capitalize Standards Action, and refer to RFC 8126 as reference (also to be added) 

Nits/editorial comments: 

1. The Abstract and the Introduction contain a sentence with broken syntax: 

'The purpose of this document is to request that IANA to create a new registry ...'

2. Several acronyms in the document are not explicitly expanded: ND, PIO, NDP