I reviewed the document "Packet loss resiliency for Router Solicitations" (draft-ietf-6man-resilient-rs-05.txt) as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the operational area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.   Intended status: Proposed Standard Updates: RFC4861 (if approved) Current draft status: IESG Evaluation IANA Review State: IANA OK - No Actions Needed IANA Action State: None   Summary: The document specifies a mechanism for hosts to cope with the loss of the initial Router Solicitations.   I don't see any issues from the operations and management pov.   There are two nits in the draft:   ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5214   == The 'Updates: ' line in the draft header should list only the _numbers_      of the RFCs which will be updated by this document (if approved); it     should not include the word 'RFC' in the list.   Cheers, Mehmet