Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-taps-minset-10
review-ietf-taps-minset-10-rtgdir-telechat-niven-jenkins-2018-09-19-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-taps-minset
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Telechat Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2018-09-20
Requested 2018-08-31
Requested by Alvaro Retana
Authors Michael Welzl , Stein Gjessing
I-D last updated 2018-09-19
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Yaron Sheffer (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Rtgdir Telechat review of -10 by Ben Niven-Jenkins (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -08 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Comments
Please review with a focus on the transmission of routing data between nodes.
Assignment Reviewer Ben Niven-Jenkins
State Completed
Review review-ietf-taps-minset-10-rtgdir-telechat-niven-jenkins-2018-09-19
Reviewed revision 10 (document currently at 11)
Result Has Issues
Completed 2018-09-19
review-ietf-taps-minset-10-rtgdir-telechat-niven-jenkins-2018-09-19-00
 Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
‚Äčhttp://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-taps-minset-10.txt
Reviewer: Ben Niven-Jenkins
Review Date: 19 September 2018
Intended Status: Informational

Summary: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be
resolved before publication.

Comments:

The document contains lots of interesting information that is well articulated
and very readable, however it is not clear who the intended audience for the
document is and what that audience is expected to do with the information in
the document.

Major Issues: No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

It is not clear to me what the purpose of the document is, who the document is
aimed at and what the document's relationship is to other TAPS document.

For example, if I am an implementer of a transport system, should I read this
document because it will aid my implementation, or should I read it if I am
interested in why I am expected to implement certain things, etc?

I think an additional paragraph should be added to the introduction to clarify
the above along the lines of "This document describes ..." and/or "This
document is intended to be read by ..."

Ben