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 | 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 | |
Request | 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