Document: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-06.txt Reviewer: Miguel Garcia Review Date: 17-Sept-2010 IETF LC End Date: 21-Sept-2010 Summary: The document is almost ready for publication as a standards track RFC, but has some small issues that should be polished. Major issues: none Minor issues: - I noticed that the document does not contain as much normative text as I would have expected. For example, see the 3rd and following paragraphs in Section 3.1, which describe the exchanges of messages between the MR and the HA. I understand that anything that is normatively described in RFC 3315 or RFC 3633 does not need to be repeated normatively here. But there is quite a lot of text an non-normative statements. Is this done on purpose? - On the second paragraph in Section 3.3, the text describes an update to the procedures of RFC 3315. Therefore, RFC 3315 should be listed in the cover page of the draft as "Updates: RFC 3315". This is for the RFC Editor to properly update the RFC database and when people search for RFC 3315 they can find that there is an update in your draft. - Considering the dependency on draft-ietf-mext-rfc3775bis, I think this draft should be promoted to a normative reference (so, a moved from Section 8.2 to 8.1). Nits/editorial comments: - Section 3, first paragraph, at the end of the second sentence, the text reads: "In this extension, an MR uses..." It is not clear to me if "this extension" refers to "NEMO Basic Support protocol" or "the document you are currently reading". Please, make it explicit - Another ambiguity. The third paragraph on Section 3 reads: To use DHCPv6PD for NEMOs, the HA assumes the role of the DR, and the MR assumes the role of the RR when located at home, and the role of a DRA co-located with the RR function, when the MR is away from home. The sequence of two ", and ..." makes it difficult to digest the text. I recommend something around these lines: To use DHCPv6PD for NEMOs, when the MR is located at home the HA assumes the role of the DR and the MR assumes the role of the RR. However, when the MR is away from home, in addition to the roles when the MR is located at home, the MR also assumes the role of a DRA co-located with the RR function. - Section 3.1, second paragraph, the text reads: Since the MR may not have yet requested any prefixes, implicit BU signaling MUST be used. In order to properly address statement of compliance towards this RFC, can you please turn the sentence involving the normative "MUST" from passive into active? - Expand terms at first occurrence. This include at least "BU". - It would be nice to see formal references when an RFC is named. For example, in Section 3.1 there are quite many references to other RFC numbers without a formal reference to the documents listed in Section 8. There are other instances of this issue throughout the document. - Not being myself familiar with the technology described here, it has been a bit hard to read the document due to the large amount of acronyms. If possible, I would recommend the authors to expand all the acronyms for helping those like me.