Hi Ben, Thanks for the review and comments; we'll post a new revision soon. Dean > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 4:18 PM > To: draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: gen-art@xxxxxxxx Review Team; IETF-Discussion list > Subject: Gen-ART Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded- > ipv6-routing-07 > > 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-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing-07 > Reviewer: Ben Campbell > Review Date: 2013-03-26 > IETF LC End Date: 2013-03-29 > > Summary: The draft is mostly ready for publication as an informational > RFC, but I have some editorial comments that might be worth considering > prior to publication. > > Major issues: > > None > > Minor issues: > > None > > Nits/editorial comments: > > -- Please expand the "P" in "P Router" in the first mention. > > -- section 3.1, paragraph 2: "... and also at least some of their > network core facing interfaces along with some P routers in the IPv6 > network." > > This seems vague. Do you mean to say that each must have one or more of > their core facing interfaces in the topology? Can "some P routers" be > stated more precisely in terms of the requirements for a particular > AFXLBR? > > -- 3.1, paragraph 3, 2nd sentence: > > The sentence is hard to parse. Comma usage seems off, and the > antecedent of "it" is unclear. I suggest breaking it into multiple > simpler sentences. > > -- 3.2: "... following sub-sections" > > Explicit references would be helpful, if this text is ever quoted > outside the draft. > > -- 3.4: > > inconsistent hyphenation of "MTID" vs "MT-ID" > > "In addition, the MT bit in the OSPFv3 Option field must be set." > > Did you mean that to be an all-caps MUST? I'm neutral on whether it is > required, but you did use MUST for similar text in the previous section. > > -- 4.1, last 2 paragraphs: > > Is the 2119 language in these paragraphs new normative language, or > restatements of normative text in the referenced RFC? If the latter, it > would be better use descriptive rather than normative language here. > > -- 5, 2nd paragraph : " ... the IPv4 networks and IPv6 networks belong > to separate and independent Autonomous Systems" > > The draft has other assertions that appear to say that they are all > assumed to be in the same autonomous system. (E.g. Section 3.3) > > -- 8: > > Which is the backdoor? The direct ipv4 route, or the imbedded route? I > can infer the answer to that, but not until the last sentence. > > -- 11, 4th paragraph: > > What's the antecedent of "this engineering practice"? This draft? The > use of the the same SA? > > -- 11, last paragraph: > > Again, what is the antecedent of "this engineering practice"? Aren't > the security details of that what this section is about in general? > > -- references: > > draft-ietf-ospf-mt-ospfv3-03 has been updated to 04. >