Subject: [Last-Call] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning domains

From: Martin Duke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:52:37 -0800

Reviewer: Martin Duke
Review result: Ready

This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the
IETF discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
[email-masked] if you reply to or forward this review.

This document is ready, and well-written. The examples were especially
helpful in following how things fit together. There aren't any specific
transport layer considerations that must be addressed to move forward;
however, this mechanism is partly intended to support multihomed
transports, and it is not difficult to imagine extensions that would help
those transports by providing additional information about each path. I
hope these eventually follow in another document.

Nits:
- Second sentence of Sec 3: delete either "which" or "that"
- Sec 3.1 RA Message Header description: clarify that non-zero checksums
"MUST be ignored by the receiver and the rest of the option processed", if
that is in fact accurate.
- Sec 3.1 it might be helpful to spell out RDNSS the first time the acronym
appears.
- Sec 5.2. Can you add a sentence on why sending two RA messages is
RECOMMENDED?

Martin

---

From: Martin Duke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:53:40 -0800

sending it to the area this time..

On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 4:52 PM Martin Duke <[email-masked]> wrote:

> - Sec 3.1 it might be helpful to spell out RDNSS the first time the
> acronym appears.