Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-bchv-rfc6890bis-06

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul,

On 4/22/17 3:23 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> 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 <​
> http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-bchv-rfc6890bis-06
> Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
> Review Date: 2017-04-22
> IETF LC End Date: 2017-03-10
> IESG Telechat date: 2017-04-25
> 
> Summary:
> 
> This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should
> be fixed before publication.
> 
> General Comments:
> 
> This version is *much* easier to understand than the -04 version that I
> previously reviewed.
> 
> Issues:
> 
> Major: 0
> Minor: 0
> Nits:  1
> 
> (1) Nit:
> 
> In section 2.3 the requested handling of footnotes is confusing.
> IIUC, the intent is:
> 
> - add a new footnote between the existing [1] and [2];
> 
> - add a new footnote at the end after the existing [5];
> 
> - renumber the footnotes sequentially (from [1] to [7]);
> 
> - adjust all the existing footnote references to refer to the same
>   footnote as previously, but using the new numbering;
> 
> - then, add references to the new footnotes [2] and [7] to the entries
>   for TEREDO and Unique-Local.
> 
> It took me a few readings of the current text to convince myself that is
> what you intended. It would be better to be more explicit about it.

Your understanding is correct. To help the reader, I have added the
following to the beginning of 2.3:

The following changes to the IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry
involves the insertion of two new footnotes. These changes require the
footnotes to be re-numbered.

Does that help explain the changes in a clearer manner?

Regards,
Brian