Thanks for the review - I'll fix it up. Alia > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:40 PM > To: General Area Review Team; enkechen@xxxxxxxxx; > naiming@xxxxxxxxx; rbonica@xxxxxxxxxxx; Atlas,AK,Alia,DMF R > Cc: jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-atlas-icmp-unnumbered-06 > > I have been selected as the General Area Review Team > (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, > please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call > comments you may receive. > > Document: draft-atlas-icmp-unnumbered-06 > Reviewer: Ben Campbell > Review Date: 2009-01-08 > IETF LC End Date: 2009-01-27 > IESG Telechat date: (unknown) > > > > Summary: This draft is very close to ready for publication as > a proposed standard. I have a couple of minor comments and > questions that should be considered prior to publication, and > some editorial nits. > > Substantive Comments: > > -- Section 4.1, definition of Next-Hop flag: "This MUST be > clear unless the Interface Role is 3, indicating an outgoing > interface." > > The interface role definition listed the value for outgoing > interface to be "1". Am I misreading something? > > -- Security Considerations: > > Are there any concerns about the extension data being > available to intermediary devices? Is there any concern about > unauthorized modification of the extension data (beyond what > is mentioned in the NAT section)? (I'm not saying they are > concerns--just checking to see if they have been thought about.) > > > Editorial Comments: > > -- Abstract: > > Please expand acronyms on first use for MIB and OSPF. ( ICMP > is probably well known enough to skip expanding.) The > Abstract should stand alone; even though they may be expanded > in the body, they should be expanded here. > > -- Section 2: > > Please expand ECMP on first use. > > -- 6th paragraph from end of section: > > s/permit/permits > > -- Section 4.3, between figure 3 an figure 4: > > It's not clear from the formatting if the line "Class-Num = > 2" is part of figure 4, part of the caption for figure 3, or > just orphaned. > > -- Section 4.3, Figure 4: > > I find it confusing to have all the examples in a single > figure. I think it would be easier to read if you split them up. > > > -- idnits reports the following: > > ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You > should update this > to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License > Policy document > (see http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is > required from > December 16, 2008. Version 1.34 of xml2rfc can be used > to produce > documents with boilerplate according to the mentioned > Trust License > Policy document. > > ... and ... > > == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of > draft-ietf-behave-nat-icmp-10 > > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf