Last Call Review of draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06
review-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06-genart-lc-shirazipour-2016-02-02-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2016-01-05 | |
| Requested | 2015-12-18 | |
| Authors | Stefano Previdi , Clarence Filsfils , Bruno Decraene , Stephane Litkowski , Martin Horneffer , Rob Shakir | |
| I-D last updated | 2016-02-02 | |
| Completed reviews |
Opsdir Last Call review of -06
by Tim Chown
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Klaas Wierenga (diff) Genart Telechat review of -06 by Meral Shirazipour (diff) Genart Telechat review of -06 by Meral Shirazipour (diff) Genart Last Call review of -06 by Meral Shirazipour (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Meral Shirazipour |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 06 (document currently at 08) | |
| Result | Ready w/nits | |
| Completed | 2016-02-02 |
review-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06-genart-lc-shirazipour-2016-02-02-00
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 <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document:draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06 Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour Review Date: 2016-01-05 IETF LC End Date: 2016-01-05 IESG Telechat date: 2016-01-21 Summary: This draft is ready to be published as Informational RFC. Major issues: Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: -[Page 5], "([RFC5305], [RFC3630], [RFC3209]", missing closing ")" -[Page 5], "need to be signaled "----->"needs to be signaled " -[Page 5], "number of failures cases"----->"number of failure cases" -[Page 7], not clear what the "<>" symbol meant -[Page 11], would be better to center Fig 6 -[Page 15], last ref "[I-D.kumar-spring-sr-oam-requirement]" draft-kumar-spring-sr-oam-requirement is now draft-ietf-spring-sr-oam-requirement -Suggestion: some acronyms could be spelled out at first use: e.g. VPN, OAM, VPLS, VPWS, PE, CE, P, VRF, SDN, ECMP, PCE Best Regards, Meral --- Meral Shirazipour Ericsson Research www.ericsson.com