Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-6man-grand-04

From: Dan Romascanu via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 10:59:40 -0700

Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
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-6man-grand-04
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 2021-06-17
IETF LC End Date: 2021-06-18
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:

Ready with Nits

This is a very well written document. I appreciate the section describing the
other Solutions Considered, which is a good guidance and reference for future
discussions and extensions.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

1. In Section 3 the Normative Language with capitalizations is used to describe
requirements from solutions. This seems quite unnecessary, and certainly cannot
be verified for conformance. 2. I would suggest moving or copying the first
sentence in Section 6 (that says that all normative text in the memo can be
found in this section) in the Introduction section.

---

From: Jen Linkova <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:01:53 +1000

Hi Dan,

Thanks a lot for reviewing the document!

On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 4:00 AM Dan Romascanu via Datatracker
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> be verified for conformance.

Yes, Michael Scharf made the same comment. -05 will have the text
updated to remove the normative language.

>2. I would suggest moving or copying the first

To be honest, I'm not sure how to fix that text into the Introduction.
The Intro section talks about the problem statement and does not refer
to the document structure. At the same time Section 4 already says
that all normative text could be found in section 6.
Do you think we need another paragraph in Introduction (or another
section, 1.3?) explaining the document structure? Or do I
misunderstand your suggestion?

--
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry

---

From: Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 13:16:04 +0300

Thank you for addressing my comments.

See in-line.

Regards,

Dan

> misunderstand your suggestion?
Yes, a paragraph in the Introduction explaining the structure of the
document and especially the place(s) where normative text can be found
would be useful. If you add these you may consider deleting other such
references spread in the text.

This being said, it's just an editorial and non-blocking comment.

Thank you for a well-written document.

Regards,

Dan

---

From: Jen Linkova <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 22:06:46 +1000

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 8:16 PM Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Yes, a paragraph in the Introduction explaining the structure of the document and especially the place(s) where normative text can be found would be useful. If you add these you may consider deleting other such references spread in the text.

I'll add the following to the very end of the Introduction:

"This document updates the Neighbor Discovery protocol to avoid packet
loss in the scenario described above.  Section 4 discusses the
changes and analyses the potential impact, while normative changes to
[RFC4861] are specified in Section 6.

---

From: Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:09:43 +0300

Looks good. Thanks for addressing this as well.

Regards,

Dan