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 revision | No specific revision (document currently at 03) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
Deadline | 2016-01-05 | |
Requested | 2015-12-12 | |
Authors | Ben Campbell , Alissa Cooper , Barry Leiba | |
I-D last updated | 2015-12-22 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -02
by Vijay K. Gurbani
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -03 by Vijay K. Gurbani Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Jon Mitchell (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Jon Mitchell |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-campbell-art-rfc5727-update by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 02 (document currently at 03) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2015-12-22 |
review-campbell-art-rfc5727-update-02-opsdir-lc-mitchell-2015-12-22-00
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.