Hi Pete, Thanks for the review. Comments inline. On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 11:02 AM Pete Resnick via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Pete Resnick > 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-6man-icmp-limits-07 > Reviewer: Pete Resnick > Review Date: 2020-02-17 > IETF LC End Date: 2020-02-25 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > > Nice simple document, easy to read, and pretty much ready to go. The one > "issue" I have listed below is a process nit, but one that should be taken care > of. Thanks! > > Major issues: > > None. > > Minor issues: > > The tracker and the shepherd writeup say that the status of the document is > "Proposed Standard", but the header of the document says "Standard". That's why > the nits checker is complaining about downrefs; it thinks that this is going > for Full Standard. The header should either say "Standards Track" (which is > normal) or "Proposed Standard". (I hereby give Bob crap for missing that one as > shepherd, and I think he should owe me a beer. ;-) ) Will fix. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > The Abstract and 1.1 both indicate that a source host that receives such an > ICMPv6 error may be able to modify what it sends, which sounds to me like it > means "on the fly". While that might be true, it seems more likely to me that > it will be used for diagnostics to modify future behavior of either the sender > or the receiver at a later date, as mentioned in 4.2. I think it's worth > mentioning up at the top. Yes, I would expect these are most useful for offline diagnostics at least at the beginning. Will mention that. > > Section 1.3: You should probably update to the RFC 8174 text. > Okay. > Section 5.1: "RECOMMENDS" isn't one of the keywords. It's not a problem in > itself, but if people search the document for the keywords (and they do), > they'll miss this one. Suggest reformulating the sentence to use RECOMMENDED. Will fix, thanks for being pedantic! > > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
