Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-02

Request Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-01
Requested revision 01 (document currently at 17)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2021-02-12
Requested 2021-01-22
Requested by Joe Clarke
Authors Randy Bush , Massimo Candela , Warren "Ace" Kumari , Russ Housley
Draft last updated 2021-02-17
Completed reviews Intdir Last Call review of -08 by Jean-Michel Combes (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -02 by Matthew Bocci (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Kyle Rose (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -10 by Wassim Haddad (diff)
We would like a review to consider usability and security issues around this proposal.
Assignment Reviewer Matthew Bocci
State Completed
Review review-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-02-rtgdir-lc-bocci-2021-02-17
Posted at
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 17)
Result Ready
Completed 2021-02-14

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-02.txt
Reviewer: Matthew Bocci
Review Date: 14 Feb 2021
IETF LC End Date: unknown
Intended Status: Standards Track


  *   No issues found. This document is ready for publication.

The document is clear and readable. Thank you!
I reviewed this from the perspective of document quality, readability, and
usefulness. There are a few cases where the language used is a little more
embellished than I would expect in a standards track document, but I do not
think this detracts from the clarity of the specification.

Major Issues:

  *   "No major issues found."

Minor Issues:

  *   "No minor issues found."