Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-11

Request Review of draft-bradner-rfc3979bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-02-15
Requested 2017-01-18
Authors Scott O. Bradner , Jorge Contreras
I-D last updated 2017-01-25
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Brian E. Carpenter (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -10 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -11 by Brian E. Carpenter (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Brian E. Carpenter
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-bradner-rfc3979bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 11 (document currently at 13)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2017-01-25
Gen-ART Last CAll review of draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-11.txt

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

Document: draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-11.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2017-01-26
IETF LC End Date: 2017-02-15 
IESG Telechat date:  

Summary: Ready with nits


I've been tracking this draft since the start and I'm very supportive of it.
I have reviewed the changes since my previous review of -08, and I am happy
them. I have made some comments on issues raised by other reviwers, but as
one of them said perfection is impossible.


> 7. Evaluating Alternative Technologies in IETF Working Groups
> technology in violation if this principle if there is a very good

s/if this principle/of this principle/

> 13. Changes Since RFC 3979 and RFC 4879
> 16. Changes Since RFC 3979

Should the preamble to these sections state that they are provided
for informational purposes only and that in case of doubt the text 
of sections 1-12 prevails?

Should these two sections be merged?