[Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-11

Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 18 December 2018 08:13 UTC

Return-Path: <mls.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietf.org
Delivered-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 865201310BE; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 00:13:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>
To: <tsv-art@ietf.org>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.89.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <154512080848.19310.17222140059063867521@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 00:13:28 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/2ySeAoIgZ-V14pb3SmR6jNwvQYU>
Subject: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-11
X-BeenThere: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 08:13:29 -0000

Reviewer: Martin Stiemerling
Review result: Ready with Issues

This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.

General issues:
- I have an issue with using RFC 2119 language in informative RFCs, as it is unclear
what normative language means in informative documents. However, I understand
that there is legacy from older documents in particular, but not limited to, RFC 7084.

- The document is in parts hard to read, even for someone who has a background in
IPv4/IPv6 transition. E.g. Section 1, 2nd paragraph, about what IP version is used
where. A figure could help here. 

- Remove the DEFAULT word and replace it with default. It is very confusing to add
capital letters normative language here. 

- Section 5: UPnP

This section is posing requirements in an IETF document that incorporates non-IETF
standards for a matter that is solely a recommendation. Can this be MUST at all? 

- Section 6: Code Considerations
This section is a collection of unfounded points without any hard proof that the
numbers are correct and tangible. Either there is a hard example on required
changes and added code size or remove it. This is an engineering document and not
a marketing document, isn't it?

  Martin Stiemerling