Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pim-rfc8736bis-01
review-ietf-pim-rfc8736bis-01-genart-lc-knodel-2023-05-16-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-pim-rfc8736bis |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 04) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2023-05-11 | |
| Requested | 2023-04-27 | |
| Authors | Stig Venaas , Alvaro Retana | |
| I-D last updated | 2023-08-31 (Latest revision 2023-05-24) | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir IETF Last Call review of -01
by Yingzhen Qu
(diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -01 by Mallory Knodel (diff) Secdir IETF Last Call review of -01 by Hilarie Orman (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Mallory Knodel |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-pim-rfc8736bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/KY_LW1lMtizTA-cTQPh7AMWMxRM | |
| Reviewed revision | 01 (document currently at 04) | |
| Result | Ready w/nits | |
| Completed | 2023-05-16 |
review-ietf-pim-rfc8736bis-01-genart-lc-knodel-2023-05-16-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. Document: draft-ietf-pim-rfc8736bis-?? Reviewer: Mallory Knodel Review Date: 2023-05-16 IETF LC End Date: 2023-05-11 IESG Telechat date: 2023-05-25 Summary: This document obsoletes another and is nearly identical in text and format, except for the critical text that has been updated. Therefore I think very few changes can or even should be made other than the incisive changes proposed by the authors. Only two small editorial suggestions: one is a stylistic choice and up to the discretion of the authors and the second is a typographical error. Major issues: Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: * It's unclear why message type names appear in parenthesis, rather than simply without, in sub-sections 4.x. * In IANA Considerations, "non- default" should be "non-default".