Document:  draft-ietf-v6ops-bb-deployment-scenarios-04.txt
Reviewer: Tom Taylor [taylor@nortel.com]
Review Date:  Wednesday 5/24/2006 11:10 PM CST
IESG Telechat Date:  Thursday, 25 May 2006

Summary: the document is basically ready but has some issues, mostly 
editorial. It could use a general tidying up of language, something too 
extensive to report on in this note. However, the editorial items are 
not significant enough to hinder understanding of the document. The 
document is hugely repetitive in its chosen format, and it is tempting 
to consider a form that draws together the common aspects leaving the 
technology-specific sections to focus on what is different in their 
respective cases. Often the difference lies solely in the names of the 
affected components.
 
Notes:

1. In section 6, DOCSIS is the layer 2 for cable systems mainly in North 
America. Europe uses DVB and Japan has another system. These are all 
described as separate annexes of ITU-T Recommendation J.112. The 
concrete suggestion for the present document is to add the words "in 
North America" to the first sentence of the second para of section 6, so 
that it reads:

"DOCSIS standardizes and documents the operation of data over Cable 
Networks in North America."

2. The second-last paragraph of section 6.2.2.2.4 suddenly starts 
talking about the CMTS/ER, where the rest of the section just talks 
about the ER. Presumably it should just be "ER" in this paragraph too.

3. What is the justification for treating the last three scenarios of 
6.2.2 as different scenarios rather than variants of the same scenario? 
The only difference is that when a GWR is present it needs to obtain a 
/48 prefix so it can delegate addresses to the hosts.

4. Bullet 4 of 6.2.2, section 6.2.2.4 text, and Figure 6.2.2.4 are 
inconsistent. Presumably the title of the scenario expresses the intent: 
the CMTS is upgraded to handle IPv6, and the GWR handles IPv6. The 
conclusion is that there is no tunnel as shown in the figure and 
further, that IPv6 packets are flowing through the CM. This raises the 
question: why does the CM not have the same requirements as the CM in 
the previous scenario?

5. Since section 7.3 really applies to all deployment scenarios, it more 
properly belongs in the beginning sections of the document, where the 
individual deployment scenario sections can refer to it.

Nits:

IDnits reports that reference [MFF] (line 3464) is undefined, and that 
references [12], [16], and [20] are unused.

IDnits points out that the copyright notice at the end of the 
boilerplate is a year out of date.

Global: existent -existing

Global: every occurence of "form" but one is a typo, should be "from"

Section 6.2.2: there is a lot of repetition between the first and second 
paragraphs. They should be combined.

Third-last paragraph of section 8.2.1.2: duplicate final sentence.

Fourth-last paragraph of section 8.2.2.2: that same sentence is present, 
and seems to cover the same ground as the second sentence of the next 
paragraph.