Last Call Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-04
review-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-04-opsdir-lc-jiang-2018-05-21-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2018-05-21
Requested 2018-05-07
Other Reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -04 by Ravi Singh (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Wassim Haddad (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -05 by Wassim Haddad (diff)
Tsvart Telechat review of -05 by Yoshifumi Nishida (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -05 by Sheng Jiang (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Sheng Jiang
Review review-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-04-opsdir-lc-jiang-2018-05-21
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/ziEl8ZVxB5eGA8oWC0Tdf59ZM_g
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 07)
Review result Has Issues
Draft last updated 2018-05-21
Review completed: 2018-05-21

Review
review-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-04-opsdir-lc-jiang-2018-05-21

Reviewer: Sheng Jiang
Review result: Has Issues

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.

This Informational document describes a mechanism that uses the conditional Router Advertisements for Enterprise Multihoming in which an enterprise network up-links to multiple ISPs using an address space assigned by an ISP. 

Major issue: no.

Minor issue: There are many unused reference. However, they are not simple Nits and cannot be fixed by deleting them from reference list. Many of these unused reference are really relevant and should have some content to describe the relationship with the mechanism or scenario of the document, such as RFC6296 NAT66, etc.

Regards,

Sheng