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 | |
I-D 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 | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-isis-te-app by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/y6rO1PG_BP_EQ8fjiBv8ONIhuKg | |
Reviewed revision | 13 (document currently at 19) | |
Result | Ready w/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".