RE: Multi6 WG Last Call (1 of 3) draft-ietf-multi6-architecture-01.txt

[<john.loughney@nokia.com>]

Elliot,

> It is proposed to forward
>      draft-ietf-multi6-architecture-01.txt
> to the IESG for approval as an Informational RFC
> 
> Any final comments must be sent to the WG list at multi6@ops.ietf.org
> within two weeks, i.e. at the latest on November 3, 2004.

I support this draft going forward, I have some comments and a few nits,
however:


1) Abstract:
   "This document specifies a set of questions that authors should be
   prepared to answer as part of a solution to multihoming with IPv6."

	I'm not sure the document 'specifies' - it discusses or contains
	a set of questions ...

2) Introduction

    "At the time of this writing there are quite a number of proposed
    solutions to the problem of multihoming within IPv6, and related
    problems such as the locator/identifier split."

	Just thinking about when this becomes an RFC, this text will sound
	odd.  Perhaps it would be better to say something like:

  "Architectural Approaches to Multi-Homing for IPv6" contains a number 
  of approaches to the problem of multihoming within IPv6, and related
  problems such as the locator/identifier split.

3) Section 3.12:

   "How does your solution interact with Son-Of-Sitelocal (whatever that
   will be)?"

	I found this somewhat confusing.  One could guess that a locator/
	identifier solution may create a new level of 'scoping.'

	Howabout:

   "How does your solution handle address/identifier scoping, if at all?"

4) Section 7  "Legal concerns"

	This is sort of "Legal/IANA concerns" - perhaps changing this would be 
	a good idea.

Nits

1) Page 6 (and others) 
	s/Ipv6/IPv6

2) Sometimes you have IPv6, Ipv6 and IP version 6 - please settle on one form.