Telechat Review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast-02
review-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast-02-genart-telechat-holmberg-2015-09-06-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 03) | |
Type | Telechat Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2015-09-01 | |
Requested | 2015-08-07 | |
Authors | Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang , Lenny Giuliano , Eric C. Rosen , Karthik Subramanian , Dante Pacella | |
I-D last updated | 2015-09-06 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Telechat review of -02
by Christer Holmberg
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -02 by Catherine Meadows (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Christer Holmberg |
State | Completed | |
Request | Telechat review on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 02 (document currently at 03) | |
Result | Ready w/nits | |
Completed | 2015-09-06 |
review-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast-02-genart-telechat-holmberg-2015-09-06-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq> Document: draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-global-table-mcast-02.txt Reviewer: Christer Holmberg Review Date: 6 September 2015 IETF LC End Date: 18 August 2015 IETF Telechat Date: 3 September 2015 Summary: The document is well written, and almost ready for publication. I do have a few editorial comments, however, that the authors may want to address. Major Issues: None Minor Issues: None Editorial Issues: General: ----------- QG_1: There are a number of abbreviations which are not expanded on first occurrence, e.g. BGP and PIM. I guess there should also be a reference associated with them? QG_2: In a few places throughout the document the text says “The document [RFC7524] extends…”, “The document [RFC7524] also defines…” etc. I suggest to remove “The document”. QG_3: In a few places throughout the document the text says “procedures of [RFCXXXX]”. I suggest to say “procedures in [RFCXXXX]”. QG_4: Sometimes the text says “Section X of [RFCXXXX]”, and sometimes “[RFCXXX] section X”. Please use consistent terminology. Section 1: ------------ Q1_1: In general, I think the Introduction section is very long and detailed. Would it be possible to move some of the stuff to dedicated sections (or, at least sub sections)? Q1_2: In the first sentence, should it be “an architecture” instead of “architecture”? Q1_3: In a few places the text says “This architecture”. Sometimes it is a little difficult to figure out whether that refers to an architecture somewhere else, or something defined in this document. Would it be possible to say e.g. “The architecture defined in [REFERENCE]…”.