Document: draft-ietf-6man-reserved-iids-01
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date:  01 Dec 2008
IESG Telechat date: 04 Dec 2008

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication. I have a couple of questions below.

Major issues: none

Minor issues:

The last sentence of section 3 seems to put a (new?) normative restriction on the behavior of protocols (like dhcpv6) defined in other documents. Should this document call out what it's updating?

Nits/editorial comments:

Nit - I'm probably missing a point in the "Possible solutions" section
- as I read it, it is attempting to justify using a registry instead of asking documents to explicitly point to the two RFCs it calls out as defining reserved IID ranges because the number of specifications to be updated would be large (the sentence here has a grammar problem that I'll send directly to the editor). Why would these same documents not need to be updated to point to the registry? (I'm not disagreeing with the registry - I just don't understand what is being argued in this part of the section.)

Nit - The first sentence in the security considerations section is confusing. To me it says 'standard track rfcs that change this registry need to be authenticated and authorized'. What does it really intend to say?