Last Call Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11
review-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11-genart-lc-even-2017-01-08-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-01-12
Requested 2016-12-29
Authors Mohamed Boucadair, Jacni Qin, Tina Tsou, Xiaohong Deng
Draft last updated 2017-01-08
Completed reviews Intdir Early review of -11 by Ralf Weber (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -11 by Sheng Jiang (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -11 by Roni Even (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -12 by Roni Even (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Roni Even
State Completed
Review review-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11-genart-lc-even-2017-01-08
Reviewed rev. 11 (document currently at 15)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2017-01-08

Review
review-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11-genart-lc-even-2017-01-08

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-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-11
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date:2017-1-9
IETF LC End Date: 2017–1-12
IESG Telechat date:  

Summary: This draft is almost  ready for publication as a standard track RFC.


Major issues:

Minor issues:

1.	In section 4 first paragraph say “DHCP servers supporting OPTION_V6_PREFIX64 should be configured with U_PREFIX64 and at least one multicast PREFIX64 (i.e., ASM_PREFIX64 and/or SSM_PREFIX64).” From the rest of the section I understand that for SSM deployments both U_PREFIX64 and SSM_PREFIX64 MUST be configured.
What is the reason for “should” in the first paragraph? Are there cases where ASM_PREFIX64 or ASM_PREFIX64 and SSM_PREFIX64 are specified and there is no need to specify U_PREFIX64, maybe these cases should be described.


Nits/editorial comments:
1.	RFC2119 keywords in the document are sometime capitalized and sometime not. I think it will be good to have consistency and if they do not intend to have RFC2119 semantics some other words should be used