Telechat Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-08
review-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-08-genart-telechat-korhonen-2016-12-29-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-01-03
Requested 2016-11-29
Authors Hao Long , Min Ye , Greg Mirsky , Alessandro D'Alessandro , Himanshu C. Shah
I-D last updated 2016-12-29
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -07 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -05 by Jonathan Hardwick (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -08 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -08 by Mehmet Ersue (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -10 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Jouni Korhonen
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 13)
Result Ready
Completed 2016-12-29
review-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-08-genart-telechat-korhonen-2016-12-29-00
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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-??
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
Review Date: 2016-12-29
IETF LC End Date: 2016-10-24
IESG Telechat date: 2017-02-16

Summary: Ready for publication.

Major issues: None.

Minor issues: None.

Nits/editorial comments:

I reviewed -07 version of the document. The issue I raised back then has been
addressed in an adequate level. There are still editorial nits in the document
like:

* Section 2:
   "include a< availability, bandwidth> information list in its OSPF"
   where the "a<" is somewhat confusing..
* Section 2:
   "node(s).The setup"
   which misses a space.

However, these nits and alike can be corrected by the RFC Editor.