Re: [Gen-art] [pcp] Gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-pcp-nat64-prefix64-04

Thanks for your review, Robert. Mohamed, others, I see that you've taken the comments into account. Thanks!

Jari

On Feb 4, 2014, at 12:06 AM, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> wrote:

> 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-pcp-nat64-prefix64-04
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review Date: 3-Jan-2014
> IETF LC End Date: 4-Jan-2014
> IESG Telechat date: Unknown
> 
> Summary: Ready with Nits
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> There are several references to expired drafts (some very expired).
> If those are not going to progress, the details you wanted to call out would be better moved here.
> 
> It's not clear which of the results in nat64-experiments you are pointing to for support for this document.
> Is the reference necessary? If so, can it be made more specific.
> 
> In section 4.1, you restate the allowed values for length from RFC6052. Consider making the statement
> even clearer that these values are a consequence of RFC6052 and aren't being defined by this document.
> Something like "The allowed values are specified in RFC6052 (currently 4,5,6,7,8,12).
> (I almost didn't include this since that set's not likely to change, but somebody might copy the style...)
> 
> RjS
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> pcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp