> I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-07. Thanks for your review, Bernie. > In Abstract and Introduction, the "updates RFC 8966" The document is now Experimental, so I'm not sure whether it can update a Standards Track document. I've removed the Updates. > I also know that this is an open issue within the IETF as there aren't > clear tags to distinguish these kinds of changes. Yes, and I suspect my position on the issue is not quite aligned with yours. > For section 2, I wonder whether "the fame format as the existing AE for IPv4 > addresses" would benefit by calling that AE value (1) out (as is done in other > places? Done. > Section 2.3 says "Prefix and seqno requests" but RFC8966 does not appear to > have a "Prefix request"? I think this should be "Route"? Right, my bad. Done. > For section 3 (last paragraph), does this imply that if the router has > 127.0.0.1 assigned it can be used for ICMPv4 packets? Or is this not > common for routers? Good point. Made it explicit. > For section 4.2.2, would changing the title from "Other TLVs" to just "Route > Request and Seqno Request" be useful (as these are the only other TLVs). Done. > And, would a reference back to section 2.3 be useful (as use of AE value > 4 is SHOULD NOT). Done. > For 6, this is usually a request to IANA to update - the RFC editor would > change it to indicate the allocated value? (Minor as it could only be an issue > if there were multiple documents trying to assign value 4.) The registry has a policy "Expert Review", and the IANA has already made the allocation (after a suitable Expert Review). Thanks again for your review, -- Juliusz -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
