Last Call Review of draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-16
review-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-16-artart-lc-jennings-2022-02-06-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 22) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | ART Area Review Team (artart) | |
| Deadline | 2022-02-12 | |
| Requested | 2021-11-10 | |
| Authors | Clarence Filsfils , Ketan Talaulikar , Daniel Voyer , Alex Bogdanov , Paul Mattes | |
| I-D last updated | 2022-02-06 | |
| Completed reviews |
Rtgdir Last Call review of -14
by Matthew Bocci
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -14 by Benjamin M. Schwartz (diff) Artart Last Call review of -16 by Cullen Fluffy Jennings (diff) Genart Last Call review of -14 by David Schinazi (diff) Intdir Telechat review of -16 by Carlos J. Bernardos (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Cullen Fluffy Jennings |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy by ART Area Review Team Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/beMjluUNRnbT8PWBIQ35pATPVBg | |
| Reviewed revision | 16 (document currently at 22) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2022-02-06 |
review-ietf-spring-segment-routing-policy-16-artart-lc-jennings-2022-02-06-00
This draft does not raise any issues specific to the ART area. The use of non UTF symbolic names is appropriate for this use case so I do not see any issues with strings. I view printable ascii as fairly well defined but if you want to be clearer, you could say 0x20 to 0x7E. As an outside reader not involved with the spring WG, this draft was relatively easy to understand. I do not see any problems with publication.