Re: [Gen-art] Genart review: draft-ietf-6man-reserved-iids-01

I hit send one paragraph too soon - sorry. One additional nit below.

On Dec 1, 2008, at 4:22 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:

> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
>
> Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
> or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-6man-reserved-iids-01
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review Date:  01 Dec 2008
> IESG Telechat date: 04 Dec 2008
>
> Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication. I have a  
> couple of questions below.
>
> Major issues: none
>
> Minor issues:
>
> The last sentence of section 3 seems to put a (new?) normative  
> restriction on the behavior of protocols (like dhcpv6) defined in  
> other documents. Should this document call out what it's updating?
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> Nit - I'm probably missing a point in the "Possible solutions"  
> section - as I read it, it is attempting to justify using a registry  
> instead of asking documents to explicitly point to the two RFCs it  
> calls out as defining reserved IID ranges because the number of  
> specifications to be updated would be large (the sentence here has a  
> grammar problem that I'll send directly to the editor). Why would  
> these same documents not need to be updated to point to the  
> registry? (I'm not disagreeing with the registry - I just don't  
> understand what is being argued in this part of the section.)
>

Nit - The first sentence in the security considerations section is  
confusing. To me it says 'standard track rfcs that change this  
registry need to be authenticated and authorized'. What does it really  
intend to say?
>

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art