Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful-06
review-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful-06-genart-lc-sparks-2024-05-22-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2024-05-22
Requested 2024-05-08
Authors Gábor Lencse , Keiichi Shima
I-D last updated 2024-05-22
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -06 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Alexey Melnikov (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -09 by Tim Chown
Tsvart Telechat review of -07 by Michael Scharf (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -06 by Michael Scharf (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/HxdF5B23i5ngjpShpCiiR82-koo
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 09)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2024-05-22
review-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful-06-genart-lc-sparks-2024-05-22-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful-06

Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2024-05-22
IETF LC End Date: 2024-05-22
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready for publication as an Informational RFC with nits

Nits/editorial comments:

There are places in the text that say "The authors are aware" - the
construction seems out of place for a consensus IETF stream document - I'm not
sure if this was the resolution of an argument, or just text that could be
further changed to "Note that" or something similar.

I support the concerns Michael raised in his tsvart review.

Please consider reaching out to the RFC-Editor early for how to best represent
the small block of pseudocode in the xml for the document.