Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update-09
review-ietf-opsawg-9092-update-09-genart-lc-holmberg-2024-02-01-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2024-02-05
Requested 2024-01-22
Authors Randy Bush , Massimo Candela , Warren Kumari , Russ Housley
I-D last updated 2024-08-07 (Latest revision 2024-02-22)
Completed reviews Genart IETF Last Call review of -09 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Intdir IETF Last Call review of -06 by Sheng Jiang (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -06 by Bo Wu (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -09 by Tim Hollebeek (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -09 by Spencer Dawkins (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/-JGRwG9L365yuNjOpdKFCFlatLY
Reviewed revision 09 (document currently at 11)
Result Ready
Completed 2024-02-01
review-ietf-opsawg-9092-update-09-genart-lc-holmberg-2024-02-01-00
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://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update-09
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 2024-02-01
IETF LC End Date: 2024-02-05
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: The document is easy to read. I consider the document Ready, but I do
have a minor editorial comment that I'd like the author to address.

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues: N/A

Nits/editorial comments:

Q1: There are a few places where the document says "Currently". I'd prefer to
instead say something like "At the time of publishing this document". I do
realize this issue already exists in RFC 9092.