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>. Document: draft-ietf-manet-rfc6779bis-05.txt Reviewer: Elwyn Davies Review Date: 2016/05/06 IETF LC End Date: 2016/05/16 IESG Telechat date: (if known) - Summary: Ready with a couple of editorial nits. Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: The suggestions for the Abstract, s1 and s1.1 are intended to clarify the relationship to RFC 7466 in the introductory text (the later comments in the MIB itself are more than adequately clear about this!) Abstract: OLD:    In particular, it    describes objects for configuring parameters of the Neighborhood    Discovery Protocol (NHDP) process on a router. NEW:    In particular, it    describes objects for configuring parameters of the Neighborhood    Discovery Protocol (NHDP) process on a router.  The extensions    described in this document adds objects and values to support the    NHDP optimisation described in RFC 7466. END s1: OLD:    In particular, it describes objects for configuring    parameters of the Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood    Discovery Protocol (NHDP) [RFC6130] process on a router. NEW:    In particular, it describes objects for configuring    parameters of the Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Neighborhood    Discovery Protocol (NHDP) [RFC6130] process on a router.  The extensions    described in this document adds objects and values to support the    NHDP optimisation described in [RFC7466]. END s1.1: It might be worth adding a list of the changes since it is short and they are a bit buried: I think they are:  - Addition of objects nhdpIib2HopSetN2Lost and nhdpIfPerfCounterDiscontinuityTime.  - Addition of extra value (notConsidered) to nhdp2HopNbrState.  - Revised full compliance state. s4:  We don't normally leave IPR statements in finished documents - Probably best to leave a RFC Editor instruction to delete the section before publication. s7.3, para 2: The referent of 'this table' is not totally clear: s/this table/the nhdpInterfaceTable/ s8, top of page 13 - DESCRIPTION below CONTACT INFO, last para: OLD:             This version of this MIB module is part of RFC 6779; see             the RFC itself for full legal notices." NEW:             This version of this MIB module is part of RFC xxxx; see             the RFC itself for full legal notices." s10, para 1:  There are weasel words here: A fuller discussion of MANET network management use cases and challenges will be provided elsewhere. Has this now happened?  If so a reference would be desirable.  Otherwise maybe    A full discussion of MANET network    management use cases and challenges is beyond the scope of this document..