Telechat Review of draft-ietf-teas-interconnected-te-info-exchange-06
review-ietf-teas-interconnected-te-info-exchange-06-genart-telechat-carpenter-2016-05-14-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-teas-interconnected-te-info-exchange |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 07) | |
| Type | Telechat Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2016-05-17 | |
| Requested | 2016-05-13 | |
| Authors | Adrian Farrel, John Drake, Nabil Bitar, George Swallow, Daniele Ceccarelli, Xian Zhang | |
| Draft last updated | 2016-05-14 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Early review of -04 by Brian Carpenter
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Brian Carpenter (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Hilarie Orman (diff) Rtgdir Early review of -04 by Stewart Bryant (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Brian Carpenter |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-teas-interconnected-te-info-exchange-06-genart-telechat-carpenter-2016-05-14 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 06 (document currently at 07) | |
| Review result | Ready | |
| Review completed: | 2016-05-14 |
Review
review-ietf-teas-interconnected-te-info-exchange-06-genart-telechat-carpenter-2016-05-14
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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. For more information, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-teas-interconnected-te-info-exchange-06.txt Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2016-05-14 IETF LC End Date: 2016-05-10 IESG Telechat date: 2016-05-19 Summary: Ready -------- Comments: --------- 1) Thanks for fixing numerous points from my Last Call review. 2) I also raised the issue of whether BCP is the right status, in view of sections 5 - 9 which refer to open questions and possible future protocol extensions. I would prefer to see these sections clearly labelled as *not* part of the normative content. After feedback from the authors, I don't see this as a show-stopper, but I think that readers expecting a concrete description of a solution will be a little surprised.