Francis,
Thanks for the careful review. Can you suggest a better title?
Ron
P.S. I have worked the other comments into the next version of the draft.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gen-art [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cerveny, Bill
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 10:12 AM
> To: Jari Arkko <[email protected]>; Francis Dupont
> <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-nd-04.txt
>
> Hi Jari
>
> I’ll review the comments and respond to them.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill Cerveny
>
> On 2/16/17, 7:47 AM, "Jari Arkko" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the detailed review, Francis!
>
> Authors — did you make a note of the comments? Did not see a
> response…
>
> Jari
>
> On 24 Jan 2017, at 18:33, Francis Dupont <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > 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-bmwg-ipv6-nd-04.txt
> > Reviewer: Francis Dupont
> > Review Date: 20170116
> > IETF LC End Date: 20170123
> > IESG Telechat date: unknown
> >
> > Summary: Ready with nits
> >
> > Major issues: none
> >
> > Minor issues: the title (and the Abstract) is a bit misleading: it is
> > not the benchmarking of the ND protocol which has ~12 different
> > functions but the benchmarking of a particular function on a router.
> > Now it is the critical one so my concern is more the document is
> > limited to only this one...
> >
> > Nits/editorial comments:
> > - ToC page 2 and 7 page 12: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments
> >
> > - 1 page 2: the limit to a router explains why the verb send is
> > replaced by forward... and why there is nothing about redirection
> >
> > - 1 page 2: determine the IPv6 next-hop's link-layer address
> > -> determine the outgoing interface and the IPv6 next-hop's
> > link-layer address
> >
> > - 2.2.1 page 5: et cetera -> etc
> >
> > - 3.1.2 page 9 (twice) and 3.2.2 page 10; recieved -> received
> >
> > - 3.1.2 page 9: IMHO you should define the "initial" term (for final
> > the meaning is obvious)
> >
> > - 3.2.1 page 10: (i.e.,IPv6 -> (i.e., IPv6
> >
> > - 3.2.2 page 10: in "packets-received will either be
> > equal to zero or packets-received." the last received -> sent.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > [email protected]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gen-art mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
