Robert, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document. Lars > On Sep 24, 2022, at 23:33, Robert Sparks via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > 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-v6ops-ipv6-deployment-07 > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review Date: 2022-09-24 > IETF LC End Date: 2022-09-26 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: Mostly ready for publication as an Informational RFC, but with nits to > address before publication. > > I appreciate that this document represents a significant amount of discussion, > and agree that obsoleting RFC6036 is the right thing to do. > > However, it is unclear who this document is for. It doesn't feel like it's for > people working on standardization or regulation, nor does it feel like a > roadmap into other work or sources of information. Parts of it _begin_ to feel > like it's intended to help people who are managing networks going through > transition, but the language in those sections is not addressed to them. Is it > primarily a guide to the narrative IPv6 evangelists could use when approaching > other audiences? > > I don't object to publishing this in its current form (but suggest addressing > the below nits), but I really wonder if it would be more useful to reconsider > the audience(s) and goals and write more explicitly to them. > > It's hard to tell what in this document is repetition of results from other > sources, and what is new synthesis and analysis. > > There is language that should be adjusted to reflect being published in > archival series. Example: "This document intends to" > > I recognize that this is a matter of style, but I find the use of phrases like > "it may be interesting to", "it is worth mentioning", and similar to be > distracting. Please consider removing the phrases - the point of the sentences > will become stronger. > > There are a few sentences that could be adjusted to make them easier for > non-native english speakers to translate. Places like "Their actions cannot be > objected, ". It would be good to scrub these before they get to the rfc-editor. > > The document is acronym-heavy, and some acronyms are used so few times that > expanding them on _every_ use is better than just on first use. Example: FBB. > > It is uncomfortable to see "It is important to say that IPv6 is not more or > less secure than IPv4". First - are you telling the readers that it is > important for them to say this? Or stating that it's important for this > document to say it? Second, the rest of the document doesn't support the > statement. Instead, it almost directly contradicts it, by pointing to the > relative maturity of implementations, the larger potential attack surface, etc. > Why is this sentence (at the beginning of 5.4.1) in the document? Could the > statement simply be removed? > > Has potential selection bias been considered in the analysis of the survey in > appendix A? Perhaps it would be more accurate to title section 3.2 "IPv6 among > Internet Service Providers in Europe"? > > At "theoretical ratio", I suggest instead of using that phrase, you explain why > you needed to say it. I suggest something like: "This is not a claim that each > person uses this many addresses", or simply talking about the ratio without > this disclaimer - the readers will already be familiar with the characteristics > of per-capita metrics. > > In 3.3, last sentence of the first paragraph - it's not clear that you actually > state otherwise in the text that follows. If you do, stating otherwise needs to > be done more clearly. If you don't, you don't need this sentence. > > Micro-nit in figure 3: Wolrdwide -> Worldwide > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
