Hi Dan, Thank you very much for the thorough review. Apologies for the delay. Procrastination and holiday came in the way. See below. > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu > Review result: Almost Ready > > 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 wait for direction from your > document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-6man-ndpioiana-02 > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu > Review Date: 2018-02-26 > IETF LC End Date: 2018-03-06 > IESG Telechat date: 2018-04-05 > > Summary: > > This is a simple and straightforward document, fixing an omission in RFC 6275, > which updated RFC 4861 without explicitly marking it as such, and failed to > create a registry to avoid conflicts. The content of the document looks fine, > but there are several minor issues that I would recommend to be considered and > discussed before approval and publication. > > Major issues: > > Minor issues: > > 1. As this document fixes a problem created by RFC 6275 which was was not > marked as updating RFC 4861, and did not create a registry to avoid conflicts, > it looks like this RFC (if approved) should also update RFC 6275. We went back and forth on this (and so do I see IESG did). Instead of updating 6275, we ended up making 6275 a normative reference. > 2. Section 3 includes a reference to [IANA-TBD] which is not defined in the > document. Yes, the purpose of IANA-TBD was for it to be a reference to the yet to be created IANA registry. And would be updated as appropriate by IANA/RFC-Editor > > 3. As the new registry contains one bit defined by RFC 6275, it seems that > [RFC6275] should also be a Normative Reference. Done. > 4. Section 4 - It would be good to capitalize Standards Action, and refer to > RFC 8126 as reference (also to be added) Capitalisation done. I ended up leaning towards not referencing 8126. As most documents with IANA considerations don't. To be consistent. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > 1. The Abstract and the Introduction contain a sentence with broken syntax: > > 'The purpose of this document is to request that IANA to create a new registry Thanks. Fixed. > 2. Several acronyms in the document are not explicitly expanded: ND, PIO, NDP > Thanks. Fixed. Spelled it out with new title: IANA Considerations for IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Prefix Information Option Flags Best regards, Ole
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
