Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-10
review-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-10-genart-lc-joras-2021-07-13-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 12) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2021-07-02 | |
Requested | 2021-06-18 | |
Authors | Alexander Clemm , Yingzhen Qu , Jeff Tantsura , Andy Bierman | |
I-D last updated | 2021-07-13 | |
Completed reviews |
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -06
by Reshad Rahman
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -10 by Matt Joras (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -09 by Shwetha Bhandari (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Alexey Melnikov (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Matt Joras |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/X_GIWKgWwhv1PBzQf2mqos38CQE | |
Reviewed revision | 10 (document currently at 12) | |
Result | Ready w/nits | |
Completed | 2021-07-13 |
review-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-10-genart-lc-joras-2021-07-13-00
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-netmod-nmda-diff-?? Reviewer: Matt Joras Review Date: 2021-07-13 IETF LC End Date: 2021-07-02 IESG Telechat date: 2021-07-15 Nits/editorial comments: Consider rewording this sentence in performance considerations: "One possibility for an implementation to mitigate against such a possibility is to limit the number of requests that is served to a client, or to any number of clients, in any one time interval, rejecting requests made at a higher frequency than the implementation can reasonably sustain." It is excessively wordy and uses the word "possibility" twice. I would suggest breaking this into two separate sentences.