Last Call Review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn-05
review-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn-05-tsvart-lc-rose-2021-02-01-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 07) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Transport Area Review Team (tsvart) | |
Deadline | 2021-02-05 | |
Requested | 2021-01-22 | |
Authors | Balazs Varga , János Farkas , Andrew G. Malis , Stewart Bryant | |
I-D last updated | 2021-02-01 | |
Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Last Call review of -05
by Loa Andersson
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Yoav Nir (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Jürgen Schönwälder (diff) Tsvart Last Call review of -05 by Kyle Rose (diff) Genart Last Call review of -05 by Ines Robles (diff) Intdir Telechat review of -05 by Tim Chown (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Kyle Rose |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn by Transport Area Review Team Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/h1NcuKWr2k31S5x_7v0N3vsU8kI | |
Reviewed revision | 05 (document currently at 07) | |
Result | Ready w/nits | |
Completed | 2021-02-01 |
review-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn-05-tsvart-lc-rose-2021-02-01-00
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. This document is ready with nits. At a high level, the document describes the relationship between DetNet flows and the underlying layer 2 network when that network is an IEEE time-sensitive network, which is interesting because both DetNet and TSN require explicit routing and resource allocation at different layers. Two nits: 1. There are numerous and often significant grammatical errors throughout the document. The working group should perform a scrub of the text to minimize editorial load on the RFC Editor. 2. Informational documents containing (lowercase, non-authoritative) normative language should provide clear references to corresponding normative sources for all such statements. Ideally, to minimize future document updates, replicating such language in non-authoritative documents is not advisable. That said, you should consider whether this document is really informational or should instead be standards-track.