I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at Document:                                   draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-2xlat-01.txt Reviewer:                                     Christer Holmberg Review Date:                               17 September 2015 IETF LC End Date:                       22 September 2015 IETF Telechat Date:                   N/A Summary:                                     The document is well written, and almost ready for publication. However, there are a few editorial nits that I ask the author to address. Major Issues: None Minor Issues: None Editorial Issues:   Section 2 (Terminology): ------------------------------   Q2_1: Many of the definitions have been defined in draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc. Now they are re-defined, and sometimes with a little different wording.   For those definitions, my suggestion would be to say:   “As defined in [draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc], a XXX is a blah blah blah” – copy/pasting the text from draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc.     Q2_2: In the Edge Relay, I think it would be good to mention the two types (node-based and network-based).     Section 4 ( Deployment Considerations ): ---------------------------------------------------   Q4_1:   The text in section 4.1. says:                                “The IPv6 Path MTU between the ER and the BR will typically be larger    than the default value defined in Section 4 of [RFC6145] (1280),”   What is (1280)?     Section 5 ( Intra-IDC IPv4 Communication ): ---------------------------------------------------   Q5_1:   The text in section 5.1 says:   “If the BR supports hairpinning as described in Section 4.2 of I-D    .ietf-v6ops-siit-eam [I-D.ietf-v6ops-siit-eam],”   I suggest to remove I-D.ietf-v6ops-siit-eam. The reference is enough.     Section 7 (IANA Considerations): ----------------------------------------   Q7_1: Do we normally remove the section if there are no requests from IANA? Personally I prefer to keep the explicit “This draft makes no request of the IANA.” sentence.   (I had the same comment on draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc, so whatever the outcome is it can be applied to both documents).     Section 8 (Security Considerations): ----------------------------------------   Q8_1:   The text says:   “See the Security Considerations section in    [I-D.ietf-v6ops-siit-dc] for additional security considerations    applicable to the SIIT-DC architecture in general.”   I suggest to remove “additional”.     Q8_2:   Is there a need to have section 8.1, or can all text be put in section 8?