Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-dime-ovli-09
review-ietf-dime-ovli-09-genart-telechat-davies-2015-09-21-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dime-ovli
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-08-18
Requested 2015-08-13
Authors Jouni Korhonen , Steve Donovan , Ben Campbell , Lionel Morand
I-D last updated 2015-09-21
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Paul E. Hoffman (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Elwyn B. Davies
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-dime-ovli by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 09 (document currently at 10)
Result Ready
Completed 2015-09-21
review-ietf-dime-ovli-09-genart-telechat-davies-2015-09-21-00
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

<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-dime-ovli-09.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 2015/08/19
IETF LC End Date:
IESG Telechat date: 2015/08/20



Summary: Ready. Thanks for addressing my last call comments (except one 


minor change got missed - see below).  A good document.  [Apologies for 


somewhat late review - in inter-continental airport limbo.]




Major issues:
None

Minor issues:


s4.2:  I commented on the possibility of turning off an abatement 


algorithm at last call.   Having thought this through, I assume that in 


general it would be sufficient for a reacting node to stop announcing 


its capability.  If this is correct it might be worth mentioning this 


(as with changing presumably this would be an exceptional case but could 


happen).  I don't think that anything very special would have to be done 


with stateful algorithms but maybe a comment would help.




Nits/editorial comments:


s5.2.1.1:  Adding a pointer to s7.3 was discussed and agreed but hasn't 


happened.



_________________