Last Call Review of draft-ietf-cdni-requirements-12
review-ietf-cdni-requirements-12-genart-lc-holmberg-2013-11-19-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-cdni-requirements
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-11-26
Requested 2013-11-06
Authors Kent Leung , Yiu Lee
I-D last updated 2013-11-19
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -12 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -13 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Shawn M Emery (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -12 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-cdni-requirements by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 12 (document currently at 17)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2013-11-19
review-ietf-cdni-requirements-12-genart-lc-holmberg-2013-11-19-00

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-cdni-requirements-12



Reviewer:                           Christer Holmberg



Review Date:                     18 November 2013



IETF LC End Date:             26 November 2013



IETF Telechat Date:         12 December 2013



Summary:  The document is well written, with one minor issue that the authors
might want to address.



Major Issues: None



Minor Issues:



Q_GEN:



The document defines priority of each requirement as either [HIGH], [MED] or
[LOW], which is fine. But, in addition to that, depending on the priority, the
requirement text uses either “shall”, “should” or “may”.



Wouldn’t it be more clean to use consistent terminology (e.g. “shall”) in the
actual requirement text, as the priority is anyway indicated separately?





Editorial nits: None