Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use-06
review-ietf-tsvwg-port-use-06-opsdir-lc-wicinski-2014-12-28-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 11) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
Deadline | 2014-12-22 | |
Requested | 2014-12-15 | |
Authors | Dr. Joseph D. Touch | |
I-D last updated | 2014-12-28 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -06
by Dan Romascanu
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -07 by Dan Romascanu (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Dan Harkins (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Tim Wicinski (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Tim Wicinski |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-use by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 06 (document currently at 11) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2014-12-28 |
review-ietf-tsvwg-port-use-06-opsdir-lc-wicinski-2014-12-28-00
(I was out last week, so i'm a bit slow in catching up) 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 primarily for the benefit of the operational area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Overall I found the document a companion to RFC6335. I only found one typo! 50:designers on how to use the transport protocol port number space. *IT* I assume that should be "It" and not "IT" The document has a lot of recommendations spread across the document and the compliance requirement statements are preceded with '>>' but they don't stand out enough while reading the document,. Would An appendix of all of them complied with links back into the main document be useful? or overkill? tim