Last Call Review of draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-02
review-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-02-opsdir-lc-mitchell-2015-12-22-00

Request Review of draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2016-01-05
Requested 2015-12-12
Draft last updated 2015-12-22
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Vijay Gurbani (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -03 by Vijay Gurbani
Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Jon Mitchell (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Jon Mitchell
State Completed
Review review-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-02-opsdir-lc-mitchell-2015-12-22
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 03)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2015-12-22

Review
review-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-02-opsdir-lc-mitchell-2015-12-22

I have reviewed draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-02 as part of the
Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents
being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written with the
intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments
that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during
the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these
comments just like any other last call comments.

I found the document is clear and Ready w/nits.

This is a BCP individual draft which clarifies the use of dispatch-style
working groups and that the SIP Change Process is not depedent on
current or future area or working group structure or names, only on the
idea of the use of a dispatch-style working group.

Nits -

Section 2:
2nd paragraph - "Dispatch Style" should be "Dispatch-Style" ?
4th paragraph (2nd bullet) - s/exist/exists
6th paragraph - "a judgement call", "also their judgement call", to make
clear whose judgement call it is by linking to previous sentence?

Section 5: personal opinion - 2nd paragraph unnecessary and nothing an
operator would consider a security concern.  A denial of service implies
intent, if there was deliberate intent, it would be easy it would seem
for AD/WG chairs to handle this event.  It would seem silly to talk
about working group DoS possibility in every document IETF publishes, if
you feel it's important to discuss the issues with dispatch-style groups
being a potential bottleneck to area or clustered groups work,
especially based on potentail for lack of participants versus amount of
work, I would think it would be better to find a more appropriate
section to do so.

References:
Informative References is misspelled, this may be causing the issues in
XML references nits the document also seems to have.