Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format-03
review-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format-03-genart-lc-halpern-2017-03-02-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-03-15
Requested 2017-02-27
Authors Greg Mirsky , Israel Meilik
I-D last updated 2017-03-02
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Jon Mitchell (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Chris M. Lonvick (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -03 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -04 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joel M. Halpern
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 06)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2017-03-02
review-ietf-ippm-twamp-time-format-03-genart-lc-halpern-2017-03-02-00
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 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-ippm-twamp-time-format-??
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2017-03-02
IETF LC End Date: 2017-03-15
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:

Major issues:

Minor issues:
    The wording of the behavioral requirements for signaling in section 2.1 is
    atypical for IETF documents (and in my view makes it harder for the reader
    to follow.)  The rules are listed as separate rules, but they are actually
    sequential steps that must be test in order, exiting the process if the
    condition for each step is met.  But it does not actually say that.

Nits/editorial comments:
    Section 2.3 refers to this as a proposal.  It is a specification, not a
    proposal.  Please reword.