Early Review of draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority-10
review-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority-10-rtgdir-early-bonica-2024-01-31-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority-10 |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | 10 (document currently at 10) | |
| Type | Early Review | |
| Team | Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir) | |
| Deadline | 2024-02-09 | |
| Requested | 2024-01-25 | |
| Requested by | Ines Robles | |
| Authors | Michael Richardson , Rahul Jadhav , Pascal Thubert , Huimin She , Konrad Iwanicki | |
| I-D last updated | 2024-01-31 | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Early review of -10
by Ron Bonica
Secdir Early review of -10 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef |
|
| Comments |
Hello, We kindly request a review of this Draft from the perspectives of both the Routing Directorate and the Security Directorate. Many thanks, Ines and Dominique |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Ron Bonica |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Early review on draft-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority by Routing Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/hlGrK5fLz3dqIPILL_wOixWrIlc | |
| Reviewed revision | 10 | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2024-01-31 |
review-ietf-roll-enrollment-priority-10-rtgdir-early-bonica-2024-01-31-00
On the whole, this draft is well-considered and ready for publication. The following are nitty comments that might just as well be resolved by the RFC editors: - Either expand acronyms on their first use or include a Terminology section - Avoid anthropomorphic language (i.e., friendly proxy) - The term "(lack of) willingness" is awkward. Do you mean ability or inability or relative priority or something like that. Again, anthropomorphic.