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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
