Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-11
review-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-11-genart-lc-even-2015-02-28-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-03-04
Requested 2015-02-25
Draft last updated 2015-02-28
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -11 by Roni Even (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -11 by Dan Harkins (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -11 by Ron Bonica (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Roni Even
State Completed
Review review-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-11-genart-lc-even-2015-02-28
Reviewed rev. 11 (document currently at 12)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2015-02-28

Review
review-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-11-genart-lc-even-2015-02-28

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.

Document:  

draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-11

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2015–2-28

IETF LC End Date: 2015–3-4

IESG Telechat date: 

 

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Standard Track  RFC

.

 

 

Major issues:

 

Minor issues:

 

 

Nits/editorial comments:

The document defines the terms “Identity association (IA)” and “IA option types” different from RFC3315 yet in the document sometimes this terms are as specified in RFC3315 including the IA_TA option. An example is for section with text changes.

For clarification: Is this document going to be obsolete by draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc3315bis, there are some sections that include changes to RFC3315 and RFC3633 and my reading is that this changes will be incorporated un the rfc3315bis draft. I am not sure about sections that provides clarifications and do not propose text changes.