Thanks for your review, Robert. Mohamed, others, I see that you've taken the comments into account. Thanks!
Jari On Feb 4, 2014, at 12:06 AM, Robert Sparks <[email protected]> wrote: > 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-pcp-nat64-prefix64-04 > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review Date: 3-Jan-2014 > IETF LC End Date: 4-Jan-2014 > IESG Telechat date: Unknown > > Summary: Ready with Nits > > Nits/editorial comments: > > There are several references to expired drafts (some very expired). > If those are not going to progress, the details you wanted to call out would > be better moved here. > > It's not clear which of the results in nat64-experiments you are pointing to > for support for this document. > Is the reference necessary? If so, can it be made more specific. > > In section 4.1, you restate the allowed values for length from RFC6052. > Consider making the statement > even clearer that these values are a consequence of RFC6052 and aren't being > defined by this document. > Something like "The allowed values are specified in RFC6052 (currently > 4,5,6,7,8,12). > (I almost didn't include this since that set's not likely to change, but > somebody might copy the style...) > > RjS > > > > _______________________________________________ > pcp mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
