I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-homenet-arch-10.txt Reviewer: Elwyn Davies Review Date: 6 September 2013 IETF LC End Date: IESG Telechat date: 12 September 2013 Summary: Apologies for missing the last call review of this document. I was up a volcano.... Essentially ready. A few very minor points and nits. Generally an excellent analysis.. but it shows there is a long way to go to get a zero config IPv6 homenet! Major issues: Minor issues: s2.4: Should this section mention that the border router at the connection(s) to the homenet's ISP(s) SHOULD be set up to filter packets with ULA source/destination addresses? (diiscussed later in para 5 of s3.4.2 - a forward ref would help). s3.7.3, last para: Should this mention mail services? As I have discovered, failing to have a reverse DNS entry for a mail source can lead to the mail being rejected. There might be other protocols/applications that need reverse DNS also. s3.3.4, last para: May not be possible to override policies defined by ISP at external border. s3.7.3, para 7: dotless domains - I'm not sure exactly whether these will really be coming? not quite reality yet - still subject to discussion/challenge? In any case probably need to define 'dotless domains'. Nits/editorial comments: General: s/i.e./i.e.,/g, s/e.g./e.g.,/g s1, p5: OLD: as well as a better result than if the IETF had not given this specific guidance. This sounds a little patronizing. Perhaps something along the lines of NEW: as well as aiming at a more consistent solution that addresses as many of the identified requirements as possible. s1.1: Does WPA2 need a reference? s2.4, p2: > Depending upon circumstances beyond the scope of homenet,.... This sounds like a reference to the homenet working group which is probably not what was meant. Maybe something like: Depending on circumstances beyond the control of the owner of the homenet,... s3.3.2, p2: s/subdivide itself to/subdivide itself into/ s3.3.3 Can you give examples of relevant protocols? s3.3.4: Grid network? Not sure what is meant here. s3.4.1, p4: Expand DHCP-PD and provide ref. Also make consistent with s3.4.3, last para. s3.5, para 3: Uses PHY (twice) - needs expanding/explaining or use 'physical interface' as in previous sections. s3.5, last para: s/participate the same way/participate in the same way/ s3.6: s/direct towards them./directed towards them./ s3.7.4, last para: Expand DNSSEC and give ref. s3.7.6: CoAP needs a ref. s3.7.8: Should devices roaming *to* the homenet be discussed? s3.8.1: Link QoS to Quality of Service explicitly. s3.8.1, para 2: s/drowning/overloading/ (drowning is slang).