Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-babel-hmac-07
review-ietf-babel-hmac-07-rtgdir-lc-mcbride-2019-07-02-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-babel-hmac
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2019-07-05
Requested 2019-06-20
Requested by Martin Vigoureux
Authors Clara Do , Weronika Kolodziejak , Juliusz Chroboczek
Draft last updated 2019-07-02
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -00 by Mike McBride (diff)
Secdir Early review of -00 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -07 by Mike McBride (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -07 by David Schinazi (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Mike McBride
State Completed
Review review-ietf-babel-hmac-07-rtgdir-lc-mcbride-2019-07-02
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/7-rW_T4IJQlrCs_hvSiTePBZSi4
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 12)
Result Ready
Completed 2019-07-02
review-ietf-babel-hmac-07-rtgdir-lc-mcbride-2019-07-02-00
Howdy,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review. The purpose of the review is
to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the
Routing Directorate, please see
‚Äčhttp://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-babel-hmac-07
Reviewer: Mike McBride
Review Date: 2 July 2019
IETF LC End Date: 5 July 2019?
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:
I reviewed the -00 of this draft back in Sept. 2018. The authors addressed my
suggestions. I've now reviewed the -07 version and see no issues.

Comments:
This document is clearly written and easy to understand and ready to go.

Major Issues:
No major issues found.

Minor Issues:
No minor issues found.

Nits:
I still think a terminology section would be helpful in this, and most, ietf
drafts but the authors did a good job of defining acronyms throughout the draft.

well done.
mike