Re: [Gen-art] [v6ops] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-12

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>]

Hi Matthew,

Thanks for your review!

We are using a special language, not RFC2119 (used in RFC7084). Anyway, I will make a note to reflect your input.

I will also correct the other nits you mention.

Regards,
Jordi
 
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: v6ops <[e-mail]> en nombre de Matthew Miller <[e-mail]>
Fecha: jueves, 3 de enero de 2019, 4:31
Para: <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Asunto: [v6ops] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-12

    Reviewer: Matthew Miller
    Review result: Ready with Nits
    
    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 treat these comments just
    like any other last call comments.
    
    For more information, please see the FAQ at
    
    <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
    
    Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-12
    Reviewer: Matthew A. Miller
    Review Date: 2019-01-02
    IETF LC End Date: 2018-12-14
    IESG Telechat date: 2019-01-10
    
    Summary:  This document is ready to be published as Informational,
    but has some nits that should be addressed before publication.
    
    Major issues: N/A
    
    Minor issue:
    
    There are some instances within the main content that RFC 2119
    keywords are present as lower case. If these are intentional, then
    RFC 8174 needs to be applied.
    
    Nits/editorial comments: 
    
    * In section 1. "Introduction" (and its subsections), the term "IPv6
    Transition CE Router" is not preceded with a definite or indefinite
    article, although it is throughout the rest of this document.
    * In section 1. "Introduction", the phrase "prohibitive expense"
    ought to be "prohibitively expensive".
    * In section 7. "Code Considerations", the word "neither" might be
    better as "nor" in the phrase "in terms of RAM memory, neither
    other hardware requirements".
    * In section 7. "Code Considerations", there seems to be a misplaced
    coma; "cost of NAT44 code so, existing hardware supports them with
    minimal impact" reads better as "cost of NAT44 code, so existing
    hardware supports them with minimal impact".
    * In section 11. "Annex A: Usage Scenarios", the comma seems
    unneeded in the phrase "another CE behind it, takes care of that".
    * In section 12. "Annex B: End-User Network Architecture", the
    term "end-user" should be used consistently, it is sometimes
    "end user".
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    v6ops mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.