Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-04

Request Review of draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2023-01-23
Requested 2023-01-09
Requested by Alvaro Retana
Authors Martin Duke
I-D last updated 2023-01-27
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -04 by Acee Lindem (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -03 by Scott Hollenbeck (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Vincent Roca (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -03 by Reese Enghardt (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -03 by Dr. Bernard D. Aboba (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -04 by Vincent Roca (diff)
Not a routing document.  Process document related to nomcom eligibility.  It is important to have more eyes on this.
Assignment Reviewer Acee Lindem
State Completed
Review review-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-04-rtgdir-lc-lindem-2023-01-27
Posted at
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 05)
Result Has Nits
Completed 2023-01-27

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and
sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide
assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing  Directorate, please see:

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs,
it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other
IETF Early Review/Last Call  comments that you receive, and strive to
resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-elegy-rfc8989bis-04.txt
Reviewer: Acee Lindem
Review Date: 01/26/2023
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
Intended Status: Best Current Practice.  

This draft makes RFC 8989 NomCom eligibility criteria update permanent. 
The updated criteria includes remote attendence, WG chairing, and RFC 
publication. This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that 
should be considered prior to publication. The intent of the draft is clear but
the readability could benefit from the editorial comments attached.  

Major Issues: None

Minor Issues: None

 The mathematical expression in Figure 4 is too wide to fit on
 a standard RFC page and should be spread over multiple lines. I've
 suggested a way this could be done in the diff.