Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-03
review-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-03-opsdir-lc-banks-2017-09-06-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 04) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2017-08-24 | |
| Requested | 2017-08-10 | |
| Authors | Sami Boutros , Siva Sivabalan | |
| I-D last updated | 2018-03-06 (Latest revision 2017-11-12) | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir IETF Last Call review of -02
by Patrice Brissette
(diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -03 by Tero Kivinen (diff) Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -03 by Sarah Banks (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Sarah Banks |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 04) | |
| Result | Has nits | |
| Completed | 2017-09-06 |
review-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-03-opsdir-lc-banks-2017-09-06-00
Hello,
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the
operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed
in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.
Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like
any other last call comments.
I think the document is almost ready to go. I don't have technical
issue with the content, but I think the document reads in parts like
several authors cut/paste/contributed, and the document doesn't flow
well in spots. Perhaps this is a personal choice, but I believe that
documents that read with some amount of approachability with respect to
all interested readers, and not just hard core
whatever-the-protocol-is-fanatics, benefits our community for the
better. Last, maybe it's the product manager in me, and not the
development engineer, but why do I care? Is this just to add LDP as
another mechanism for establishing the PW? Is there some deficit that's
being addressed by LDP that existing mechanisms don't solve? This isn't
addressed in a way that resonates in the document, for me. Last, while
super picky, the acronym "PSN" was used in the abstract before being
properly introduced. This was mostly made more noticeable by the fact
that the rest of the draft does a fantastic job of introducing the
terms before using the acronym.
Thanks
Sarah