Last Call Review of draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10
review-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10-genart-lc-shirazipour-2021-04-22-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 13) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2021-03-31 | |
| Requested | 2021-03-16 | |
| Authors | Charles E. Perkins , S.V.R Anand , Satish Anamalamudi , Bing (Remy) Liu | |
| Draft last updated | 2021-04-22 | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -09
by
Tero Kivinen
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -10 by Meral Shirazipour (diff) Secdir Telechat review of -10 by Tero Kivinen (diff) Iotdir Telechat review of -10 by Peter Van der Stok (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Meral Shirazipour |
| State | Completed | |
| Review |
review-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10-genart-lc-shirazipour-2021-04-22
|
|
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/KSBJsR4W2QSw3ufpxCoWgHgmeU0 | |
| Reviewed revision | 10 (document currently at 13) | |
| Result | Ready with Issues | |
| Completed | 2021-04-22 |
review-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10-genart-lc-shirazipour-2021-04-22-00
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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10 Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour Review Date: 2021-04-22 IETF LC End Date: 2021-03-31 IESG Telechat date: 2021-04-22 Summary: This draft is almost ready to be published as Standards Track RFC but I have some comments. Major issues: Minor issues: Other than some issues already reported on the list, the draft is a bit hard to follow, Intro could be improved and the terminology was very long, maybe presenting terms in category would help. Nits/editorial comments: Section B1 says "Reclassified [RFC6998] and [RFC7416] as Informational." RFC7416 was already Informational. What that a typo? This is not part of the final RFC - I was just trying to follow the various diffs of the document.