Jouni - Just to let you know that V14 of the draft was posted today and it includes all of the corrections you requested. Thanx again for your review. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@xxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 8:02 AM > To: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@xxxxxxxxx>; gen-art@xxxxxxxx > Cc: last-call@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-isis-te-app.all@xxxxxxxx; lsr@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-isis-te-app-13 > > Jouni - > > Thanx for the review. > > I have addressed the editorial issues you raised - though I will wait for > additional comments from other reviewers before publishing a new version. > > Les > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jouni Korhonen via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 6:11 AM > > To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx > > Cc: last-call@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-isis-te-app.all@xxxxxxxx; lsr@xxxxxxxx > > Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-isis-te-app-13 > > > > Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen > > Review result: Ready with Nits > > > > 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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > > > Document: draft-ietf-isis-te-app-?? > > Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen > > Review Date: 2020-05-29 > > IETF LC End Date: 2020-05-29 > > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > > > Summary: > > > > Not really my area of expertise, however, I did not spot any issues during > the > > review. The document is ready for publication. > > > > Major issues: > > > > None. > > > > Minor issues: > > > > None. > > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > > * There are spacing issues mostly with parenthesis in the text that the RFC > > editor likely takes care of. * On line 165 SR is used without expanding it. The > > expansion is obvious but the RFC has both "Segment Routing" and "Shared > > Risk" > > used with SRxx.. * At least Section 5 has "is NOT" and "does NOT" emphasis > > used. I would use just "is not" and "does not", since those with "NOT" are > > not > > in listed in normal "Requirements Language". > > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
