Telechat Review of draft-bchv-rfc6890bis-06
review-bchv-rfc6890bis-06-genart-telechat-kyzivat-2017-04-22-00

Request Review of draft-bchv-rfc6890bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-04-25
Requested 2017-04-07
Draft last updated 2017-04-22
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -04 by Dan Frost (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -06 by Brian Weis (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Paul Kyzivat
State Completed
Review review-bchv-rfc6890bis-06-genart-telechat-kyzivat-2017-04-22
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 07)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2017-04-22

Review
review-bchv-rfc6890bis-06-genart-telechat-kyzivat-2017-04-22

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 
<‚Äčhttp://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-bchv-rfc6890bis-06
Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
Review Date: 2017-04-22
IETF LC End Date: 2017-03-10
IESG Telechat date: 2017-04-25

Summary:

This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should 
be fixed before publication.

General Comments:

This version is *much* easier to understand than the -04 version that I 
previously reviewed.

Issues:

Major: 0
Minor: 0
Nits:  1

(1) Nit:

In section 2.3 the requested handling of footnotes is confusing.
IIUC, the intent is:

- add a new footnote between the existing [1] and [2];

- add a new footnote at the end after the existing [5];

- renumber the footnotes sequentially (from [1] to [7]);

- adjust all the existing footnote references to refer to the same
   footnote as previously, but using the new numbering;

- then, add references to the new footnotes [2] and [7] to the entries
   for TEREDO and Unique-Local.

It took me a few readings of the current text to convince myself that is 
what you intended. It would be better to be more explicit about it.