Last Call Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-14
review-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-14-genart-lc-bryant-2017-07-25-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-14
Requested rev. 14 (document currently at 19)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-07-28
Requested 2017-07-12
Requested by Russ White
Other Reviews Rtgdir Early review of -02 by John Drake (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Ines Robles (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Yangdoctors Early review of -02 by Kent Watsen (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -14 by Ines Robles (diff)
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -14 by Kent Watsen (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -18 by Radia Perlman (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -18 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -18 by Qin Wu (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Stewart Bryant
Review review-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-14-genart-lc-bryant-2017-07-25
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/BQXSIPH_09XazjVzSG2eD9O5rIc
Reviewed rev. 14 (document currently at 19)
Review result Ready with Nits
Draft last updated 2017-07-25
Review completed: 2017-07-25

Review
review-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-14-genart-lc-bryant-2017-07-25

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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-14
Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review Date: 2017-07-25
IETF LC End Date: 2016-12-19
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready with a few minor English nits remaining.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments: 

I notice that a number of the editorial comments in 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-09-genart-lc-bryant-2016-12-12/

were not addressed, but I am sure the RFC Editor will pick them up.

I notice that RFC7952 is in the reference list but not called out in the text.