Genart last call review of draft-ietf-6man-grand-04

Dan Romascanu via Datatracker <> Thu, 17 June 2021 17:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 742463A288E; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 10:59:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Dan Romascanu via Datatracker <>
Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-6man-grand-04
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.32.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Reply-To: Dan Romascanu <>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 10:59:40 -0700
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 17:59:41 -0000

Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
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


Document: draft-ietf-6man-grand-04
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 2021-06-17
IETF LC End Date: 2021-06-18
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat


Ready with Nits

This is a very well written document. I appreciate the section describing the
other Solutions Considered, which is a good guidance and reference for future
discussions and extensions.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

1. In Section 3 the Normative Language with capitalizations is used to describe
requirements from solutions. This seems quite unnecessary, and certainly cannot
be verified for conformance. 2. I would suggest moving or copying the first
sentence in Section 6 (that says that all normative text in the memo can be
found in this section) in the Introduction section.