Last Call Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-02
review-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-02-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-09-17-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-09-22
Requested 2015-09-11
Draft last updated 2015-09-17
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Tobias Gondrom (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Qin Wu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Review review-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-02-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-09-17
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 03)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2015-09-17

Review
review-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-02-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-09-17






Re-send with correct IETF tools e-mail address.




 










From:

 Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-bounces at ietf.org]


On Behalf Of 

Christer Holmberg




Sent:

 17. syyskuuta 2015 10:56




To:

 gen-art at ietf.org




Cc:

 draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-02.all at tools.ietf.org




Subject:

 [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-02










 




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>




Document:                                   draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-02.txt




Reviewer:                                     Christer Holmberg




Review Date:                               17 September 2015




IETF LC End Date:                       22 September 2015




IETF Telechat Date:                   N/A




Summary:                                     The document is well written, and almost ready for publication. However, there are a few editorial nits that I ask
 the author to address.




Major Issues: None




Minor Issues: None




Editorial Issues:




 




Section 1 (Introduction):




---------------------------------




 




Q1_1:




 




In a few places the ‘BR’ abbreviation is used, but it is not enhanced until section 2. Please enhance on first occurrence in section 1.




 




 




Q1_2:




 




In a few places the ‘BR’ abbreviation is used, but it is not enhanced until section 2. Please enhance on first occurrence in section 1.




 




The text says:




 




“o  To ensure that that the legacy users' IPv4 addresses remain




      visible to the nodes and applications.”




 




…and:




 




“This ensures that there is no loss of information; the end-user's IPv4




source address remains available to the application, allowing”




 




It may be obvious, but would it be possible to somehow make it more clear that the text is not (I assume) talking about the application running on the IPv4 node, but an application running in an IPv6 network?




 




In other parts of the document it is more clear. E.g. in section 3.1 the text says: “application running on the IPv6-only server”,




 




 




Section 6 (IANA Considerations):




----------------------------------------




 




Q6_1: Do we normally remove the section if there are no requests from IANA? Personally I prefer to keep the explicit


“This draft makes no request of the IANA.” sentence.