Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-03
review-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-03-opsdir-lc-zhou-2017-06-12-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 05) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
Deadline | 2017-06-09 | |
Requested | 2017-05-26 | |
Authors | Parag Jain , Sami Boutros , Sam Aldrin | |
I-D last updated | 2017-06-12 | |
Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Last Call review of -01
by Keyur Patel
(diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Tianran Zhou (diff) Genart Last Call review of -03 by Joel M. Halpern (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Sandra L. Murphy (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Tianran Zhou |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 05) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2017-06-12 |
review-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-03-opsdir-lc-zhou-2017-06-12-00
Reviewer: Tianran Zhou Review result: Has Nits 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. Document reviewed: draft-ietf-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping-03 Summary: No issue found. This document is well written, and is ready for publication. Only a couple of nits, for the authors consideration: 1. in section 1, "Multipoint LDP (mDLP)" Is the acronym "mLDP"? 2. in section 1, "Multi-segment Pseudowires support is out of scope of this document at present and may be included in future." At this stage, the I-D is stable. I think you can just say "Multi-segment Pseudowires support is out of scope of this document". 3. in section 6, "MLDP" should align with the previous acronym in section 1, i.e. "mLDP". And there is auto check result from the system: == Unused Reference: 'RFC5085' is defined on line 325, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4379 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. Regards, Tianran