IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-29
review-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-29-artart-lc-sparks-2025-06-18-00

Summary: Ready with nits for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC

The document has no art area specific issues to address.

It does have an unusual requirement to hold publication on a missing
Informative reference and intentionally points into the appendix of an
obsoleted RFC.

Nits/Questions:

What does the first sentence of the third paragraph of section 4.1 add to the
document? I think the document says the same thing with the sentence removed.

In the fourth paragraph of section 4.1, should "consider implementing" be
"consider using"?

At "microflow state is exhausted", consider something like "storage for
microflow state is exhausted".

A personal editorial opinion - feel free to ignore it: Much of this document is
written in a conversational tone. It has a structure that both repeats itself
and has unusual backward references. The prose could be simplified in many
places without changing the meaning. The result would be easier to read,
particularly for readers having to perform translation.