Subject: AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-6man-ug

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 10:05:53 -0500

All,
     I have completed my AD evaluation of draft-ietf-6man-ug.  I found
it to be well-written and to the point.  I only have a few comments on
the document.  Once these are resolved, I can start the IETF Last Call
on it.

1. ID-nits complains about three issues:

   * The updating of 4291 may require this draft to have the pre-RFC5378
boilerplate.  Given the formulation of this document, I don't believe we
need the pre-RFC5378 boilerplate.

   * Two lines exceed the 72-character limit.

   * Several references are out-dated.

2. Abstract

   * I cannot parse the phrase "have no generic meaning".  I think what
you want to say is that the bits are generic and the entire IID is a
single opaque value.

   * Similarly, the bits are not significant within the IID, they are
only significant during the formulation of the IID from the IEEE
link-layer address.

3. Section 5

   * The first sentence of the third paragraph could be clarified.  The
clause "need not treat the 'u' and 'g' bits in any special way" does not
necessarily agree with the MUST in the first part of the sentence. Would
it make more sense to change "need not treat" to "MUST NOT treat"?

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:15:22 +1300

Hi Brian,

Thanks for the review. Comments below.

> need the pre-RFC5378 boilerplate.

Agreed.

>    * Two lines exceed the 72-character limit.

That's probably an xml2rfc side-effect but we'll check.

>    * Several references are out-dated.

Next run of xml2rfc should fix that.

> only significant during the formulation of the IID from the IEEE

OK, will rephrase accordingly.

> it make more sense to change "need not treat" to "MUST NOT treat"?

When I look at the sentence in context, it looks as if we repeat ourselves
anyway. I suggest the following:

OLD
   Specifications of other forms of 64-bit IID MUST specify how all 64
   bits are set, but need not treat the "u" and "g" bits in any special
   way.  A generic semantic meaning for these bits MUST NOT be defined.

NEW
   Specifications of other forms of 64-bit IID MUST specify how all 64
   bits are set, but a generic semantic meaning for the "u" and "g" bits
   MUST NOT be defined.

Regards
     Brian C

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 08:12:47 -0500

Brian,

>    bits are set, but a generic semantic meaning for the "u" and "g" bits

The above works for me.  Once I see a new rev, I wills start the IETF
Last Call.

Regards,
Brian