Skip to main content

IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch-11
review-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch-11-tsvart-lc-nishida-2025-08-03-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Transport Area Review Team (tsvart)
Deadline 2025-08-06
Requested 2025-07-16
Requested by Mohamed Boucadair
Authors Maciek Konstantynowicz , Vratko Polák
I-D last updated 2025-11-05 (Latest revision 2025-11-04)
Completed reviews Genart IETF Last Call review of -11 by Lars Eggert (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -11 by Shawn M Emery (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -11 by Nabeel Cocker (diff)
Perfmetrdir IETF Last Call review of -14 by Xiao Min (diff)
Tsvart IETF Last Call review of -11 by Yoshifumi Nishida (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -11 by Jen Linkova (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Yoshifumi Nishida
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch by Transport Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/QwlB48L_MQIzSVMYsRwDzs-leMs
Reviewed revision 11 (document currently at 15)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2025-08-03
review-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch-11-tsvart-lc-nishida-2025-08-03-00
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.

I believe this document is well-written and almost ready for publication 
as an informational RFC.
I think this document doesn't have transport related issues as the methodology 
described in the document is designed to be protocol-agnostic and doesn't specify 
any transport protocol specific requirements or conditions.

One minor point I've noticed is how we should follow the 'Discussion' paragraphs
in Section 4.While the paragraphs contain RFC2119 terms, I am not very sure 
if we should really follow the requirements as I have some impressions 
there might be some rooms for discussions.
I think it would be better to clarify how the readers should follow the 
requirements in them.

Thanks,
--
Yoshi