Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-10

Request Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2015-03-18
Requested 2015-03-11
Authors Greg M. Bernstein , Sugang Xu , Young Lee , Giovanni Martinelli , Hiroaki Harai
I-D last updated 2015-03-21
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -09 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -12 by Francis Dupont
Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Benjamin Kaduk (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Tim Wicinski (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tim Wicinski
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling by Ops Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 10 (document currently at 12)
Result Has nits
Completed 2015-03-21

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational

ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed
      by the IESG.  These 

comments were written with the intent of improving the
      operational aspects of the 

IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call
      may be included in AD reviews 

during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs
      should treat these comments 

just like any other last call comments. 

Revision reviewed: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-10

      Summary: Ready with nits and notes.

      ID Nits: Has Nits

      Note: There is IPR. 

        Intended status: Standards Track

I've read the document and I think it is ready for
      proceeding. I have some minor editorial comments which I 

will pass along to the authors.


 -- The draft header indicates that this document updates
      RFC6205, but the

     abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it

== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info has been
      published as RFC


Reference Comment:

Under Informative References RFC6163 is listed as 

          "work in progress:
      draft-bernstein-ccamp-wavelength-switched-03.txt, February 2008"

It's t

he only RFC reference that looks off.