Ben,
splendid comments! I've tried to incorporate all of them, and will either issue
a new revision or make the changes during AUTH48 depending on other LC feedback.
cheers,
Ole
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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf