I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

The summary of the review is Almost Ready. NB to Security ADs: there are no obvious security considerations. What follows is a more general review.

Issue:

- The one thing that stands out is that the document is classified "informational" and yet appears to have a bunch of normative language. Is this intended to be standards track? Or are the requirements established in section 5.1 merely preconditions for the applicability of LDP (akin to RFC 7084's note in section 1.1), in which case I would not regard "MUST" et al. as keywords and would remove the boilerplate in section 2 and/or not use ALL CAPS. (I regard the editorial choice made in the publication of 7084 to be ill-advised because of the potential for confusion given how ALL CAPS normative language is used throughout the rest of the RFC series.)

Nits:

- "Many Service Providers assign prefixes larger then /64 to the CE Router, as recommended in [RFC6177]." If this use of "larger" is idiomatic for IPv6 (i.e., a larger prefix actually means a shorter prefix and therefore more addresses), it is ambiguous to the point that it should be ruthlessly stamped out of the jargon. ("Inflammable means flammable? What a country!")

- "As the default configuration is designed to be the flat model to support zero configuration networking." I am unable to read this as a complete sentence.

- I presume the RFC Editor will assist in refining the formality of employed language before publication, but in general I would avoid using contractions (e.g., "haven't") in internet drafts.