# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, AD review for draft-ietf-intarea-v4-via-v6-05 CC @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below my AD review.
As the responsible AD, I expect all the points below to be addressed, either by a revised I-D, or an email reply. Of course, authors and WG can reject my points, but this needs to be justified. Once all the points are addressed, I will proceed with the publication process, i.e., IETF Last Call. Special thanks to Luigi Iannone for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status even if I do not agree with it. I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric Note: this AD reviews follows the Markdown syntax of https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/tree/main, i.e., they can be processed by a tool to create github issues. ## Critical issues ### Intended publication status It seems to me that it is rather an informational document than a proposed standard as this I-D does not specify anything but merely describe how existing implementations can be used. The abstract actually uses words like in an informational I-D: `proposes` and `describes` ### Section 1 Please avoid the use of `we` as it is ambiguous: authors ? WG ? IETF community ? Passive form is probably the easiest way to remove this issue. ### Section 3 Should the more usual "route information base (RIB)" and "forwarding information base (FIB)" be used rather than `routing table` and `forwarding plane` ? or at least appear in the text ? ### Section 4 Actually, this whole section is rather about having a "core" of routers not having IPv4 addresses and I do not think that this belongs to this limited-scope I-D. A simple reference to RFC 7404 should be enough (this would also avoid the downref to RFC 7600 4rd). ### Section 5 Strongly suggest following the format from section 2.1 if RFC 7942. ### Section 6 Should there be some positive aspects be listed ? E.g., reducing the IPv4 address consumption ? ## Non-critical / cosmetic issues Note: these points must also be addressed. ### Section 3.1 I wonder why the 1st paragraph uses `IPv4 prefixes` and `IPv6 addresses` rather than "prefixes" everywhere ? ### Section 3.3 s/Other protocol advertise/Other protocol advertise*s*/ ### Section 5.2 Even if this section will be removed, please do not use RFC 1918 address (e.g., `ip route show 10.0.0.2`). ### Next-hop or nexthop or next hop? Check for consistency as the 3 writings are mixed in this I-D.
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
