Telechat Review of draft-ietf-mpls-special-purpose-labels-06
review-ietf-mpls-special-purpose-labels-06-genart-telechat-even-2014-03-22-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-mpls-special-purpose-labels |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 06) | |
Type | Telechat Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2014-03-25 | |
Requested | 2014-03-20 | |
Authors | Kireeti Kompella , Loa Andersson , Adrian Farrel | |
I-D last updated | 2014-03-22 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -05
by Roni Even
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Roni Even Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Taylor Yu (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Roni Even |
State | Completed | |
Request | Telechat review on draft-ietf-mpls-special-purpose-labels by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 06 | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2014-03-22 |
review-ietf-mpls-special-purpose-labels-06-genart-telechat-even-2014-03-22-00
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-mpls-special-purpose-labels-05 Reviewer: Roni Even Review Date:2014–2-24 IETF LC End Date: 2014–3-3 IESG Telechat date: Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Standard track RFC . Major issues: Minor issues: 1. In section 3.2 (a): I noticed that the policy to update the registry according to section 5 is standard action so it should be the same here since this is an update to the registry. Nits/editorial comments: In section 3 last sentence “This answer to this” should be “The ..” In section 3.2 item c you have “for for”