I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04 Reviewer: Ben Campbell Review Date: 2011-06-17 IETF LC End Date: 2011-06-20 IESG Telechat date: 2011-06-23 Summary: The draft is essentially ready for publication as an informational RFC. I have a few editorial comments that may be worth considering prior to final publication. Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: -- general: Idnits reports some potential issues. please check. -- abstract: The headers say this draft obsoletes these RFCs. Does moving to historical obsolete then in that sense? Perhaps the abstract should say something like "obsoletes, and moves to historical" -- section 1, 2nd paragraph: "...designed to help transitioning the Internet..." Help transition, help in transitioning, or help the transition of -- section 1, last paragraph: Please expand 6rd on first mention. Also, Is this meant as an explicit recommendation of 6rd as an alternative? -- section 3, third paragraph: "...same operational burden has manually configured tunnels..." s/has/as -- section 3, first bullet: "... and in the case the relay is overloaded packet loss." "overloaded, packet loss." -- section 3, third bullet: "...customer relationship or..." "... customer relationship between the end-user and the relay operator, or..." -- section 3, 4th bullet: "In case of the reverse path 6to4 relay and the anycast forward 6to4 relay, these have to be open for any address. Only limited by the scope of the routing advertisement. " Awkward sentence followed by a sentence fragment. Can these be reworded? -- section 3, 5th bullet: "black hole" Please define "black hole" in this context, or use a more descriptive (I.e. less jargony) term. -- section 4, 2nd paragraph: "It is expected that disabling 6to4 in the IPv6 Internet will take some time." Who expects it? The IETF? v6ops? The authors? (or can we just drop "It is expected that") "...deploy native IPv6 service." s/service/services -- section 4, numbered list: It's not clear to me why this is a numbered list rather than an ordinary paragraph _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf