Reviewer: Joel Halpern Review result: Ready 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-cellar-ffv1-16 Reviewer: Joel Halpern Review Date: 2020-07-13 IETF LC End Date: 2020-07-16 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: This document appears to be ready for publication as an Informational RFC. *I would have raised question about the intended status, but it appears that this is an established IETF convention and I see no reason to argue.) Major issues: Minor issues: Section 3.4 (Context) introduces the notation Q_{#}[ subscript }. As that is the first reference to Q_{#}, it is rather confusing to the reader. I grant that the term is defined in the next section (3.5). Couldn't they be reversed? Section 3.8.1.1 refers to C(i), C_{i}, and C_i. Are these all the same thing. Section 3.8.1.2 refers to get-rac (which is treated as a function in the pseudo-code) as being the process described in section 3.8.1.1. The text in 3.8.1.1 does not call out any of its computed values as an explicit result or return. While I would guess that the intention is to use the byte stream (B()), the text does not actually say that. If that is the intention, could the last line of 3.8.1.1 be "get_rac() returns sequential bytes from the Byte Stream (B()) as computed by the computation described in section 3.8.1.1"? Nits/editorial comments: -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
