I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for
(for background on Gen-ART, please see
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2010-05-02
IETF LC End Date: 2010-05-14
IESG Telechat date: (if known):
Summary: This draft is roughly ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.
I have some comments and nits:
The first two comments are about changes from RFC 3971, if they are
intentional it may be good to have a section on changes from RFC 3971 and
list these specific changes with backward interoperability issues if there
1. In section 4 second paragraph "SEND certificates MUST include the
IP Resources extension for IPv6 Address ." Section 6.3.1 of RFC 3971 says
"Router Authorization Certificates are X.509v3 certificates, as defined in
RFC 3280, and SHOULD contain at least one instance of the X.509 extension
for IP addresses, as defined in RFC 3779." So why is it a MUST here.
2. The same paragraph has "Certified IPv6 address space SHOULD be
expressed using either addressPrefix or addressesOrRange elements." .
Section 6.3.1 in RFC 3971 says "The X.509 IP address extension MUST contain
at least one addressesOrRanges element" as for the addressPrefix according
to this section "The X.509 IP address extension MAY contain additional IPv6
subnet prefixes, expressed as either an addressPrefix or an addressRange."
3. In section 7 there are TBA1, TBA2 and TBA3, who will assign values
for these IDs.
1. Section 5 has "an end user could local SEND deployment " it looks
like there is a missing word in this sentence
2. In section 5 expand ULA.
Ietf mailing list