Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-name-version.txt Reviewer: your-name Review Date: date IETF LC End Date: date-if-known Intended Status: copy-from-I-D Summary: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication Comments: This document describes an "autonomic solution for IPv6 prefix management at the edge of large-scale ISP networks". The document contains a description of a mechanism to request and receive an IPv6 prefix, which is just one part of an overall process of address management in a network. The document could benefit from some considerations of the interplay between this address assignment mechanism and the routing system used within the network. The document also does not explicitly address issues of address prefix reuse, and the relative advantages and disadvantages between an address management mechanism that attempts to define a long lived association between a device a particular address prefix, and a dynamic pool management system that admits for high levels of prefix reuse. The document also does not define the intended scope applicability - for example is this mechanism intended to operate across network administrative boundaries? If not, how are such adminis boundaries defined? This is intended for publication as an informational document, so there is no requirement to meet strict standards of precision and clarity. That said, there are areas where the language is speculative and vague, and some assertions are clearly untested (and somewhat dubious in the way in which they are stated). Comments on quality and readability. I don't believe that the document clearly achieves what it intended to achieve. The document describes a problem space, and then jumps immediately into a way to define an ANIMA scheme that could be set up to perform a prefix assignment function. It would help in an informational document to provide a bridge between problem and solution specifics, namely a design overview of they overall approach being described in this document. Other reviews have noted editorial nits - no point in repeating that work here.