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

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Mon, 30 April 2018 14:10 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB7B9124BFA; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 07:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xyhp8QyV5VgW; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 07:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from accordion.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B97C0126C2F; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 07:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from h.hanazo.no (77.16.49.12.tmi.telenormobil.no [77.16.49.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by accordion.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9042B2D5200; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 14:10:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26F36202EDBFFE; Mon, 30 Apr 2018 16:10:13 +0200 (CEST)
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Message-Id: <1504EF54-5E22-41E5-B9D2-706940E4A197@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A3208250-280C-465A-9652-B9C2A7553080"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\))
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 16:10:12 +0200
In-Reply-To: <151966446045.31474.2565002909272861036@ietfa.amsl.com>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana.all@ietf.org, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, ietf@ietf.org
To: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>
References: <151966446045.31474.2565002909272861036@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/VFVsTwjCsVZ8BY14_XiBd_ilRyE>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-02
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 14:10:20 -0000

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