Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-13
review-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-13-genart-lc-sparks-2019-04-10-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-04-12
Requested 2019-03-22
Authors Eric Voit , Reshad Rahman , Einar Nilsen-Nygaard , Alexander Clemm , Andy Bierman
I-D last updated 2019-04-10
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Last Call review of -12 by Robert Wilton (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -13 by Aanchal Malhotra (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -13 by Wesley Eddy (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -13 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -13 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 13 (document currently at 15)
Result Ready
Completed 2019-04-10
review-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-13-genart-lc-sparks-2019-04-10-00
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-netconf-restconf-notif-13
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2019-04-10
IETF LC End Date: 2019-04-12
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready for publication as a proposed standard

Nits/editorial comments:

The abstract is quite terse. Please consider expanding it to something that
stands better by itself.

The sentence that starts "Driving these requirements" in the introduction does
not follow where it sits in the paragraph. There is no antecedent for "these
requirements". I suggest replacing the sentence with "Requirements for these
mechanisms are captured in [RFC7923].

The second sentence in the first paragraph of section 3 is a run-on. I suggest
s/2.4, the/2.4. The/