Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-02

[Dan Romascanu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ole,

Thanks for addressing my comments. All your answers to the minor and
editorial comments that I made are are fine with me.

Regards,

Dan


On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 5:10 PM, Ole Troan <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Dan,
>
> Thank you very much for the thorough review.
> Apologies for the delay. Procrastination and holiday came in the way.
>
> See below.
>
> > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> > Review result: Almost Ready
> >
> > 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-6man-ndpioiana-02
> > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> > Review Date: 2018-02-26
> > IETF LC End Date: 2018-03-06
> > IESG Telechat date: 2018-04-05
> >
> > Summary:
> >
> > This is a simple and straightforward document, fixing an omission in RFC
> 6275,
> > which updated RFC 4861 without explicitly marking it as such,  and
> failed to
> > create a registry to avoid conflicts. The content of the document looks
> fine,
> > but there are several minor issues that I would recommend to be
> considered and
> > discussed before approval and publication.
> >
> > Major issues:
> >
> > Minor issues:
> >
> > 1. As this document fixes a problem created by RFC 6275 which was was not
> > marked as updating RFC 4861, and did not create a registry to avoid
> conflicts,
> > it looks like this RFC (if approved) should also update RFC 6275.
>
> We went back and forth on this (and so do I see IESG did).
> Instead of updating 6275, we ended up making 6275 a normative reference.
>
> > 2. Section 3 includes a reference to [IANA-TBD] which is not defined in
> the
> > document.
>
> Yes, the purpose of IANA-TBD was for it to be a reference to the yet to be
> created IANA registry.
> And would be updated as appropriate by IANA/RFC-Editor
>
> >
> > 3. As the new registry contains one bit defined by RFC 6275, it seems
> that
> > [RFC6275] should also be a Normative Reference.
>
> Done.
>
> > 4. Section 4 - It would be good to capitalize Standards Action, and
> refer to
> > RFC 8126 as reference (also to be added)
>
> Capitalisation done.
> I ended up leaning towards not referencing 8126. As most documents with
> IANA considerations don't. To be consistent.
>
> >
> > Nits/editorial comments:
> >
> > 1. The Abstract and the Introduction contain a sentence with broken
> syntax:
> >
> > 'The purpose of this document is to request that IANA to create a new
> registry
>
> Thanks. Fixed.
>
> > 2. Several acronyms in the document are not explicitly expanded: ND,
> PIO, NDP
> >
>
> Thanks. Fixed.
> Spelled it out with new title:  IANA Considerations for IPv6 Neighbor
> Discovery Prefix Information Option Flags
>
> Best regards,
> Ole
>
>