Telechat Review of draft-ietf-taps-arch-18
review-ietf-taps-arch-18-opsdir-telechat-dhody-2023-08-26-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-taps-arch |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 19) | |
| Type | Telechat Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2023-09-05 | |
| Requested | 2023-08-16 | |
| Authors | Tommy Pauly , Brian Trammell , Anna Brunstrom , Gorry Fairhurst , Colin Perkins | |
| I-D last updated | 2023-08-26 | |
| Completed reviews |
Opsdir Telechat review of -18
by Dhruv Dhody
(diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -18 by Bernie Volz (diff) Secdir Early review of -12 by Watson Ladd (diff) Artart Early review of -11 by Robert Sparks (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -17 by Watson Ladd (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -17 by Dhruv Dhody (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Dhruv Dhody |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Telechat review on draft-ietf-taps-arch by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/GKhXrZ9RUlhs4vvHxChM8r7UyhU | |
| Reviewed revision | 18 (document currently at 19) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2023-08-26 |
review-ietf-taps-arch-18-opsdir-telechat-dhody-2023-08-26-00
# OPSDIR review of draft-ietf-taps-arch-18 I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in the last-call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last-call comments. The document is clear and well-written. The motivation is described well. The architecture is clean. I did a review of the -17 version. All comments and nits identified are handled by the new version. I made a suggestion to think about adding an explicit section for Operations and Manageability. But I assume the authors did not think it was useful for an API architecture document and that's okay. But I would have appreciated a reply anyway. Thanks! Dhruv