Last Call Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-14
review-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-14-genart-lc-gurbani-2023-12-18-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 18)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2023-12-11
Requested 2023-11-27
Authors Acee Lindem , Aditya Dogra
I-D last updated 2023-12-18
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -12 by Russ White (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -13 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Secdir Early review of -13 by Mališa Vučinić (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -14 by Vijay K. Gurbani (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -15 by Dave Thaler (diff)
Secdir Early review of -03 by Mališa Vučinić (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -02 by Tim Chown (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Ben Niven-Jenkins (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Vijay K. Gurbani
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/pkz2suJdniSbeO0nNAgvGlZ20L4
Reviewed revision 14 (document currently at 18)
Result Ready
Completed 2023-12-18
review-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-14-genart-lc-gurbani-2023-12-18-00
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-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-14
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: 2023-12-18
IETF LC End Date: 2023-12-11
IESG Telechat date: 2024-01-04

Summary: The I-D is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.  The document
is well written, with reasons why critical choices in the development of the
protocol have been made.

Major issues: 0

Minor issues: 0

Nits/editorial comments: 1

Nits: I am not sure what the line numbers in Section 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 mean. 
This is the first time I have seen such adornment of code with line numbers
outside of the use of such line numbers in the Basic programming language. 
However, the document seems inconsistent in that it does not appear to use
similar line numbers in the pseudo-code in Section 7.1 and 7.2, for instance. 
I would advise uniformity in adoring code if possible.