Subject: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address-06.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:21:50 +0200

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-ivi-icmp-address-06.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20120920
IETF LC End Date: 20120925
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:
 In general the language itself could be improved even there is nothing
 which is hard to understand (i.e., it is a comment only on the form).
 I suggest to get some help from English native authors or to leave this
 to the RFC Editor...

 - 3 page 3: an non-IPv4- -> a non-IPv4-

 - 3 page 3: (style) bound for to (I suggest "sent to")

 - 3.1 page 3: uRPF -> unicast reverse path forwarding (uRPF)
  (note: uRPF is in the RFC Editor abbrev list but not as "well known")

 - 3.1 page 3: (style) origination (I suggest "origin" or "source")

 - 3.2 page 4: a question (vs a comment): is RFC 5837 widely supported?

 - 8 page 5: Henrik Levkowetz is included twice

 - 9.1 page 5: BCP 84 is included as a normative reference?
  (I have no concern but I'd like to warn this point is questionable)

 - 9.2 page 6: I am not sure ISO IS 3166 codes are appropriate in
  postal addresses, so CN -> China?

Regards

[email-masked]

---

From: Xing Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 21:08:35 +0800

Hi, Francis,

Thank you very much! We will modify the draft during the RFC Editor process.

Best regards,

xing