Subject: Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-nd-04.txt

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 15:53:45 +0000

Hi Jari,

Sorry for the slow response. We worked all of Francis' comments into the draft except for one. In his first comment, Francis suggests that the title is misleading. We asked for a better title but got no response.

If Francis can recommend a better title, there is still time to change it.

                                                                    Ron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 7:47 AM
> To: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-ietf-bmwg-ipv6-nd-04.txt
> 
> Thanks for the detailed review, Francis!
> 
> Authors - did you make a note of the comments? Did not see a response...
> 
> Jari
> 
> On 24 Jan 2017, at 18:33, Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
> 
> > 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-bmwg-ipv6-nd-04.txt
> > Reviewer: Francis Dupont
> > Review Date: 20170116
> > IETF LC End Date: 20170123
> > IESG Telechat date: unknown
> >
> > Summary: Ready with nits
> >
> > Major issues: none
> >
> > Minor issues: the title (and the Abstract) is a bit misleading: it is
> > not the benchmarking of the ND protocol which has ~12 different
> > functions but the benchmarking of a particular function on a router.
> > Now it is the critical one so my concern is more the document is
> > limited to only this one...
> >
> > Nits/editorial comments:
> > - ToC page 2 and 7 page 12: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments
> >
> > - 1 page 2: the limit to a router explains why the verb send is
> > replaced by forward... and why there is nothing about redirection
> >
> > - 1 page 2: determine the IPv6 next-hop's link-layer address  ->
> > determine the outgoing interface and the IPv6 next-hop's
> >   link-layer address
> >
> > - 2.2.1 page 5: et cetera -> etc
> >
> > - 3.1.2 page 9 (twice) and 3.2.2 page 10; recieved -> received
> >
> > - 3.1.2 page 9: IMHO you should define the "initial" term (for final
> > the meaning is obvious)
> >
> > - 3.2.1 page 10: (i.e.,IPv6 -> (i.e., IPv6
> >
> > - 3.2.2 page 10: in "packets-received will either be
> >   equal to zero or packets-received." the last received -> sent.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > [email-masked]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gen-art mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art