Early Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-03
|Requested rev.||no specific revision (document currently at 12)|
|Team||Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)|
|Requested by||Susan Hares|
|Authors||Zhuangyan, Danian Shi, Rong Gu, Hariharan Ananthakrishnan|
|Draft last updated||2018-01-07|
Yangdoctors Early review of -02 by Reshad Rahman
Rtgdir Early review of -03 by Matthew Bocci (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -06 by Carlos Martínez (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -06 by Radia Perlman (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -08 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
This is a request for a QA review. It will run parallel to the WG LC for this document.
|Reviewed rev.||03 (document currently at 12)|
|Review result||Has Issues|
Hello, I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology/ The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the stage that the document has reached. As this document is in working group last call, my focus for the review was to determine whether the document is ready to be published. Please consider my comments along with the other working group last call comments. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Document: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-03.txt Reviewer: Matthew Bocci Review Date: 5th January 2018 Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: I have significant concerns about this document. It needs more work before being submitted to the IESG. Comments: The rationale for this document is clear and I did not note any major technical comments. However, one major comment that I have is that the English grammar and usage is poor in some sections, and it is missing normal English articles in some places (a, an, the,…), making it hard to read. I would suggest that the authors go through the draft with a native English speaker to help resolve these before handing the draft to the IESG.