Last Call Review of draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-10
review-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-10-genart-lc-holmberg-2017-09-02-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 14) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2017-08-23 | |
| Requested | 2017-08-09 | |
| Authors | Percy Tarapore , Robert Sayko , Greg Shepherd , Toerless Eckert , Ramki Krishnan | |
| I-D last updated | 2017-09-02 | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Last Call review of -10
by Tomonori Takeda
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Barry Leiba (diff) Genart Last Call review of -10 by Christer Holmberg (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Nevil Brownlee (diff) Genart Telechat review of -11 by Christer Holmberg (diff) Tsvart Telechat review of -11 by Yoshifumi Nishida (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Christer Holmberg |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 10 (document currently at 14) | |
| Result | Almost ready | |
| Completed | 2017-09-02 |
review-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-10-genart-lc-holmberg-2017-09-02-00
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> Document: draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-10.txt Reviewer: Christer Holmberg Review Date: 2 September 2017 IETF LC End Date: 23 August 2017 IETF Telechat Date: N/A Summary: The document is well written. However, there are a couple of issues that I'd like the authors to address. Major Issues: None Minor Issues: Q1: The Introduction talks about the growing usage of multicast, and the it begins the list what the document does. But, what is the background and need for the document? Is there a problem? Are there interoperability issues? At the end of the section it is said that ways to improve are identified, but it is unclear exactly what needs to be improved. I think it would be good to say a few words in the Introduction about the issues and problems. Editorial Issues: Q2: The title of section 4 is "Supporting Functionality". That seems a little strange in my eyes. Supporting functionality of what?