HI Ron, Thanks for the review and comments. Please see inline below. Ian > On 12. Dec 2020, at 16:44, Roni Even via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Roni Even > 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 > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements-?? > Reviewer: Roni Even > Review Date: 2020-12-12 > IETF LC End Date: 2020-12-14 > IESG Telechat date: 2020-12-17 > > Summary: The document is ready for publication with nits as a standard track RFC > > Major issues: > > Minor issues: > > Nits/editorial comments: > 1. first sentence in section 3.5 "If the client loses information about a > prefix that it is delegated ..." not clear "it is” [if - Suggested reword: If the client loses information about an an active prefix lease it has been delegated... ] > 2. section 7 "This document > does not add any new security considerations beyond those mentioned in Section > 22 of [RFC8213]." RFC8213 does not have section 22 , did you mean of RFC8415? [if - RFC8213 is correct. The draft has been updated just to reference RFC8213, rather than any specific section as the whole document is relevant.] > > 3. In section 7 are there any security requirements for the operational > interface requirements from section 4.4? [if - Good point. How about adding a reference recommending that RFC4778 (Current Operational Security Practices in Internet Service Provider Environments) is implemented?] > > > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
