Early Review of draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe-04

Request Review of draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2016-08-16
Requested 2016-08-15
Authors Mohamed Boucadair, Ian Farrer
Draft last updated 2016-08-16
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Ólafur Guðmundsson (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Fred Baker (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -04 by John Scudder (diff)
Assignment Reviewer John Scudder
State Completed
Review review-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe-04-rtgdir-early-scudder-2016-08-16
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 08)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2016-08-16



I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​


Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe-04 
Reviewer: John Scudder
Review Date:  August 16, 2016
IETF LC End Date:  August 25, 2016 
Intended Status: Standards Track


	• This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication.


The draft is well-written, clear, readable and concise without being terse. As a nonexpert, I felt it provided sufficient explanation and context for me to understand without having to spend a great deal of time chasing references.

Major Issues:

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

Section 1.3 says:

   4.  When a match is found, the client SHOULD configure the resulting
       S46 mechanism.  Configuration for other S46 mechanisms MUST be

It was not obvious to me why the SHOULD is not a MUST. Under what circumstances would it be valid for an implementer to disregard the SHOULD? I find it is often a helpful exercise to explain such exceptions in a MAY clause. If there are no exceptions, then it's a MUST.


-  You use the term "BR/AFTR" but don't define what BR means. A definition would help. (AFTR is defined in section 1.)

-  Likewise you haven't defined "CE". It's a pretty common term, but I would think it still needs a definition, or better still you could rewrite to remove the acronym (you only use it once).

- Likewise "DHCPv6 ORO message". It's reasonably obvious from context, and not difficult to look up, but would still benefit from being expanded in line instead of using the acronym.