Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-09

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <> Thu, 12 July 2012 01:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33FE111E80C9 for <>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ar4OlhRKWRM7 for <>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67C7211E80A3 for <>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:43:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2789; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1342057431; x=1343267031; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=4nzmzsXMnaKnKCExB1QsJ6uKWbzg8MSdF2JEAp5bekY=; b=RRZn0If1Pld1SKuadYqrNifM+aLmtChcMXJekHH/ozplG1SQxEMQguO0 CWSPIAi3zrWC5Sda10F4DF4XwlKpLRnFFJ/HFEpzsexc5e0ywo1vUyL6i APmoIM2ms9JBHMvWlinwno4dn/fzyA1qgwTE6cYaPKq/j56eoi4HSpQ+G s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,571,1336348800"; d="scan'208";a="101052790"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 12 Jul 2012 01:43:51 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q6C1hpsk029678 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 12 Jul 2012 01:43:51 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:43:50 -0500
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <>
To: Meral Shirazipour <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-09
Thread-Index: Ac1fsY4kFtlzh9NdSKKJzWHPeaNESgAHirpQ
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 01:43:25 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-
x-tm-as-result: No--44.843800-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:12:06 -0700
Cc: "" <>, "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <>, "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-09
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 01:43:20 -0000


Will do.

Thanks much and best regards,


-----Original Message-----
From: Meral Shirazipour [] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 6:08 PM
Subject: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-09

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <> .

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-09
Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
Review Date: 2012-07-11
IETF LC End Date: 2012-07-11
IESG Telechat date: -

This draft is almost ready to be published as Informational RFC but I do have some comments.

Major issues:

Minor issues:
-[Page 20], Appendix A, the list only covers changes to existing text in RFC6204. It would help the reader if you could please add a paragraph on new additions, e.g. 6rd, etc.; even though this is mentioned in the Abstract.

-[Page 20], Appendix A, all changes refer precisely to a bullet ID (e.g. G-5, WAA7, etc.) which makes it easier to find the change in the document; except changes #1, 8, 10, 12, 13. It would bring great clarification if you could please add a precise reference in the text for these change items.

Nits/editorial comments:
-[Page 4], "NAT" is first used, please spell out.

-[Page 6], Section 3.2.1, last sentence: the ULA-5 and L-4 are not right below the text but appear one page later. Suggestion:
"..especially requirements ULA-5 and L-4 below."  --> "..especially requirements ULA-5 and L-4 described in Section 4".

-[Page 8] W-6,  [I-D.ietf-pcp-base] is now version v-26.[Page 17] gives reference to v-24.

-[Page 8] W-6, " enabled by default or mechanisms by which.." --> " enabled by default or using mechanisms by which.."

-[Page 9] WAA-4, IA_NA is first used, reference to [RFC3315] would be useful and consistent with the rest of the sentence. 

-[Page 11] WPD-8, [I-D.ietf-dhc-pd-exclude] is now RFC6603. [Page 17] gives reference to draft v-4.

-[Page 15], DLW-2, "Network Address Translation (NAT)": second time acronym is spelled out in the document. Can just use "NAT" instead.
note: "NAT" is first used and should be spelled out in Section 3.1.

-[Page 15], [MULTIHOMING-WITHOUT-NAT] reference format needs to be updated and point to draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat-0x

-[Page 20], item 8 has a typo, "if an service provider"---->"if a service provider"


Meral Shirazipour