Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-02
review-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-02-rtgdir-lc-bocci-2021-02-17-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-01
Requested rev. 01 (document currently at 07)
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 Kumari, Russ Housley
Draft last updated 2021-02-17
Completed reviews 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)
Comments
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 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/TpDNWoMDptPkOomlNqRkrjlCq7w/
Reviewed rev. 02 (document currently at 07)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2021-02-14

Review
review-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-02-rtgdir-lc-bocci-2021-02-17

Hello,

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 ‚Äčhttp://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir>

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

Summary:


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

Comments:
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."