Last Call Review of draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-11
review-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-11-rtgdir-lc-venaas-2022-02-24-00
| Request | Review of | draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-11 |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | 11 (document currently at 13) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
| Deadline | 2022-02-25 | |
| Requested | 2022-02-07 | |
| Requested by | Luc André Burdet | |
| Authors | Peter Saint-Andre | |
| I-D last updated | 2022-02-24 | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Last Call review of -11
by Stig Venaas
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -11 by Russ Mundy (diff) Genart Last Call review of -11 by Christer Holmberg (diff) Intdir Last Call review of -11 by Sheng Jiang (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -11 by Dan Romascanu (diff) Tsvart Last Call review of -11 by Wesley Eddy (diff) Artart Last Call review of -11 by Thomas Fossati (diff) I18ndir Last Call review of -11 by Martin J. Dürst (diff) |
|
| Comments |
Can you please find a reviewer for this set of documents? Because this is an IAB document the datatracker seems to not allow me to request a review. This is a process document, but an important one in the production of IETF RFCs. Please assign the review to one of the WG chairs [1] in the directorate. |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Stig Venaas |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model by Routing Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/fbYBwN8z9lnWb7Psh26FfAZvP2A | |
| Reviewed revision | 11 (document currently at 13) | |
| Result | Has nits | |
| Completed | 2022-02-24 |
review-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-11-rtgdir-lc-venaas-2022-02-24-00
I have reviewed the document and it is in good shape. The document has a few nits found by the idnits tool. The string "RFC" should not be included when specifing "obsoletes:" or "updates:". Also the abstract mentions that the documents obsoletes or updates documents that are not listed by the obsoletes/updates headers. In 3.1.1.4. paragraph 4: "participation for those unable to to attend in person." Double "to". I'm wondering whether any of the references should be normative, but it may not make sense for this document.