Thank you I will address these when I resolve any other other LC comments. Best regards Stewart > On 28 Dec 2020, at 21:23, Andy Smith via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Andy Smith > Review result: Has Nits > > Hello, > > I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The > Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as > they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special > request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. > For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir > > Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would > be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call > comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by > updating the draft. > > Document: draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-sfl-08.txt > Reviewer: Andy Smith > Review 28 December 2020 > IETF LC End Date: date-if-known > Intended Status: Proposed Standard > > Summary: > > This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be > considered prior to publication. > > Comments: > > The document is easy to follow. It is a novel idea that solves a reasonable > to understand problem. > > Major Issues: > > Nothing obvious. > > Minor Issues: > > Section 5: > > This it is proposed -> Thus it is proposed > > Section 6: > > large set of overlapping measurement type -> large set of overlapping > measurement types > > "increased operation and capital cost" -> do you really want to make this > claim? If so need to quantify it. > > Section 7.1: > > "when a packet had a delay relative to its predecessor of 2us both the up to > 1us and the 2us counter" doesn't make sense. reword > > Section 7.2: > > "Characteristic’s 1 and 2" no apostrophe needed > > Section 7.3: > > "create a large demand on storage in the instrumentation system" -> quantify > this if this claim is going to be made > > Section 9.1: > > "Editor’s Note we" - Clarify who 'we' is. The authors? the WG? don't use > first person. > > Nits: > > A number of run-on sentences are in the document, especially in the > Introduction. While not fatal, it makes it a chore to read in parts. > Consider breaking some long sentences apart. > > There is a lack of comma usage throughout the document, a nit, but hurts > readability. > > > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
