Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-isis-te-app-13
review-ietf-isis-te-app-13-genart-lc-korhonen-2020-05-29-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-isis-te-app
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2020-05-29
Requested 2020-05-14
Authors Les Ginsberg , Peter Psenak , Stefano Previdi , Wim Henderickx , John Drake
Draft last updated 2020-05-29
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -06 by Bruno Decraene (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -13 by Bruno Decraene (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -13 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -13 by Kyle Rose (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Jouni Korhonen
State Completed
Review review-ietf-isis-te-app-13-genart-lc-korhonen-2020-05-29
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/y6rO1PG_BP_EQ8fjiBv8ONIhuKg
Reviewed revision 13 (document currently at 19)
Result Ready with Nits
Completed 2020-05-29
review-ietf-isis-te-app-13-genart-lc-korhonen-2020-05-29-00
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-isis-te-app-??
Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
Review Date: 2020-05-29
IETF LC End Date: 2020-05-29
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:

Not really my area of expertise, however, I did not spot any issues during the
review. The document is ready for publication.

Major issues:

None.

Minor issues:

None.

Nits/editorial comments:

* There are spacing issues mostly with parenthesis in the text that the RFC
editor likely takes care of. * On line 165 SR is used without expanding it. The
expansion is obvious but the RFC has both "Segment Routing" and "Shared Risk"
used with SRxx.. * At least Section 5 has "is NOT" and "does NOT" emphasis
used. I would use just "is not" and "does not", since those with "NOT" are not
in listed in normal "Requirements Language".