IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-29
review-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-29-genart-lc-gurbani-2025-06-23-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 33)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2025-06-18
Requested 2025-06-04
Authors Greg White , Thomas Fossati , Ruediger Geib
I-D last updated 2026-05-11 (Latest revision 2025-09-16)
Completed reviews Intdir Early review of -23 by Benson Muite (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -29 by Vijay K. Gurbani (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -29 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -29 by Kyle Rose (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -29 by Giuseppe Fioccola (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -30 by Kyle Rose (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Vijay K. Gurbani
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/ULzk6MCwNnDsM7Ix1gohsrw0Ldk
Reviewed revision 29 (document currently at 33)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2025-06-23
review-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-29-genart-lc-gurbani-2025-06-23-00
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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-29
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: 2025-06-23
IETF LC End Date: 2025-06-18
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: The draft is ready for publication as a Standards Track document.

Major issues: 0

Minor issues: 0

Nits/editorial comments: 2

Nits:
- Abstract: s/applications to cable broadband/the application of NQ PHB to
cable broadband/

- S3.3, first paragraph: Is L4S "experimental"?  Or is it "Informational"?  The
designation of L4S (RFC 9330) is "Informational", but the draft uses the
"experimental" prefix.  I suspect the draft means "experimental" in a generic
sense, and not as a RFC designation moniker, but just the same, it confused me
(and may do so to others who are aware of IETF RFC designations).