I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <​ http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. General: This draft is ready for publication as a Standards Track RFC, but has few nits I would like to get clarification first. The IDnits throws complains that to me can be fixed by the RFC editor (or outdated references automatically when a new revision is generated) and the complaints regarding non-compliant RFC3849 & RFC5737 addresses seem to be bogus. Comments: * Lines 480 and 928 have "advertised MTU", which not really immediately obvious what it means and where it comes from. I would suggest using the exactly same terminology as used in RFC4443 and RFC4884 when referring to values taken from those, for example. * Line 367: what is the situation when SHOULD takes place i.e., a packet with "illegal" source address is not silently discarded? Clarify the case. * Line 367: s/siletly drop/silently discard * Lines 350, 389-390: payload length is said here to include IPv4 options, if present. However, earlier in lines 373-375 it says IPv4 options MUST be ignored so options can never be "if present", right? Suggest aligning the text for consistency if the options are never present in the translated messages. * Line 588: what happens to translated IP packet with illegal source addresses? Is this the case for SHOULD referred in line 367? - Jouni