Re: [shim6] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-shim6-applicability

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I believe this draft is ready for the IESG. I've noted some minor
points below, which could be fixed now or later.

     Brian

Nits and editorial:
===================

>    This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
>    Contributions published or made publicly available before November
>    10, 2008.  

Do we need this bit of legal junk? Unless there is specific old
material and its authors are not available to say "OK", there is
no need for this. So which old material written by who is included?

> Regarding to the outbound traffic to H, 

--> Regarding the outbound traffic to H,

> IPv4 addressed can be

--> IPv4 addresses can be

>    [RFC3704] proposes that non-PI addresses should ensure that each
>    packet is delivered to the provider related with the prefix of its
>    source address.  

This is very contorted English. Maybe:

   [RFC3704] requires that sites using non-PI addresses should ensure that each
   packet is delivered to the provider whose prefix matches its source address.

>   These routers maintain as many parallel routing tables
>    as valid source prefixes are, 

--> These routers maintain as many parallel routing tables
   as there are valid source prefixes,

>    It is worth to note that 

--> It is worth noting that

>   In particular, the use of HBA/CGA prevents on-path and
>    off-path attackers to introduce new locators in the locator set of a
>    Shim6 context, preventing redirection attacks [RFC4218]. 

--> In particular, the use of HBA/CGA prevents on-path and
   off-path attackers injecting new locators into the locator set of a
   Shim6 context, thus preventing redirection attacks [RFC4218].

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of
     draft-nordmark-shim6-esd-01