Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-03

Request Review of draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2017-08-24
Requested 2017-08-10
Authors Sami Boutros , Siva Sivabalan
I-D last updated 2017-09-06
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -02 by Patrice Brissette (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Tero Kivinen (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Sarah Banks (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Sarah Banks
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-03-opsdir-lc-banks-2017-09-06
Reviewed revision 03 (document currently at 04)
Result Has nits
Completed 2017-09-06

        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.