I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-ero-01.txt Reviewer: Francis Dupont Review Date: 21 May 2007 IETF LC End Date: 28 May 2007 IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Ready Comments: only editorial (i.e., to be handled by the RFC editor) comments: - 4 page 4 last sentence: either the wording is poor or the sentence should finish by "Relay-Reply message". - in 4 and 5 page 4, the abbrev "ORO" should be replaced or expanded into "Option Request Option" (I suggest to introduce the abbrev in section 4 to use it in section 5). - I suggest to use either a dash or a space in message names. BTW RFC 3315 uses "Relay-forward" and "Relay-reply" (a dash and one cap). - IMHO (i.e., do it if you'd like or if someone else asks for it) it should be fine to add a detailed reference (section 20.3 of RFC 3315) in the first sentence of section 5. Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED] PS: don't forget Brian's comments. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
