Hi Matthew, Thanks for your review!
We are using a special language, not RFC2119 (used in RFC7084). Anyway, I will make a note to reflect your input. I will also correct the other nits you mention. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: v6ops <[email protected]> en nombre de Matthew Miller <[email protected]> Fecha: jueves, 3 de enero de 2019, 4:31 Para: <[email protected]> CC: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Asunto: [v6ops] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-12 Reviewer: Matthew Miller 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-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-12 Reviewer: Matthew A. Miller Review Date: 2019-01-02 IETF LC End Date: 2018-12-14 IESG Telechat date: 2019-01-10 Summary: This document is ready to be published as Informational, but has some nits that should be addressed before publication. Major issues: N/A Minor issue: There are some instances within the main content that RFC 2119 keywords are present as lower case. If these are intentional, then RFC 8174 needs to be applied. Nits/editorial comments: * In section 1. "Introduction" (and its subsections), the term "IPv6 Transition CE Router" is not preceded with a definite or indefinite article, although it is throughout the rest of this document. * In section 1. "Introduction", the phrase "prohibitive expense" ought to be "prohibitively expensive". * In section 7. "Code Considerations", the word "neither" might be better as "nor" in the phrase "in terms of RAM memory, neither other hardware requirements". * In section 7. "Code Considerations", there seems to be a misplaced coma; "cost of NAT44 code so, existing hardware supports them with minimal impact" reads better as "cost of NAT44 code, so existing hardware supports them with minimal impact". * In section 11. "Annex A: Usage Scenarios", the comma seems unneeded in the phrase "another CE behind it, takes care of that". * In section 12. "Annex B: End-User Network Architecture", the term "end-user" should be used consistently, it is sometimes "end user". _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
