Telechat Review of draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-00
review-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-00-genart-telechat-sparks-2014-08-05-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 02) | |
Type | Telechat Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2014-08-05 | |
Requested | 2014-07-31 | |
Authors | Les Ginsberg | |
I-D last updated | 2014-08-05 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -00
by Robert Sparks
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -00 by Robert Sparks (diff) Secdir Telechat review of -00 by Carl Wallace (diff) Opsdir Telechat review of -00 by Melinda Shore (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Robert Sparks |
State | Completed | |
Request | Telechat review on draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 00 (document currently at 02) | |
Result | Ready w/nits | |
Completed | 2014-08-05 |
review-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-00-genart-telechat-sparks-2014-08-05-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-isis-tlv-codepoints-00 Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: 20-Jul-2014 IETF LC End Date: 25-Jul-2014 IESG Telechat date: 7-Aug-2014 Summary: Basically ready for publication, but with process nits for the group and the IESG to consider Thanks for assembling such a clearly written document. The shepherd writeup should have discussed _why_ this document is intended for Proposed Standard. There is no protocol definition here, and nothing to progress on the standards ladder. This is, instead, primarily defining process. Why isn't this being progressed as a BCP? Should this Update any of the RFCs that previously defined these registries?