Telechat Review of draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07
review-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07-genart-telechat-halpern-2017-08-03-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 13) | |
| Type | Telechat Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2017-08-15 | |
| Requested | 2017-07-31 | |
| Authors | John Brzozowski, Gunter Van de Velde | |
| Draft last updated | 2017-08-03 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -02 by Joel Halpern
(diff)
Intdir Last Call review of -02 by Jouni Korhonen (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Tim Chown (diff) Genart Last Call review of -03 by Joel Halpern (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Watson Ladd (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Sarah Banks (diff) Genart Telechat review of -07 by Joel Halpern (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Joel Halpern |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07-genart-telechat-halpern-2017-08-03 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 07 (document currently at 13) | |
| Review result | Ready with Issues | |
| Review completed: | 2017-08-03 |
Review
review-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07-genart-telechat-halpern-2017-08-03
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 <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07 Reviewer: Joel Halpern Review Date: 2017-08-03 IETF LC End Date: 2017-06-06 IESG Telechat date: 2017-08-17 Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Best Common practice RFC< although there are some issues to be considered. Major issues: N/A Minor issues: The issue of status for the document (BCP vs Informational) is for the IESG to conclude. However, even if it is a BCP, as I understand the purpose, this document is intended to describe the practices to be used when a provider has decided to deploy a /64 per host. The wording that is chosen throughout the document makes it appear that the underlying decision about such a deployment is also a recommended practice. Nits/editorial comments: N/A