Skip to main content

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.