Matt, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document. Lars > On 2021-7-13, at 19:47, Matt Joras via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Matt Joras > 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-netmod-nmda-diff-?? > Reviewer: Matt Joras > Review Date: 2021-07-13 > IETF LC End Date: 2021-07-02 > IESG Telechat date: 2021-07-15 > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Consider rewording this sentence in performance considerations: > > "One possibility for an implementation to mitigate against such a possibility > is to limit the number of requests that is served to a client, or to any number > of clients, in any one time interval, rejecting requests made at a higher > frequency than the implementation can reasonably sustain." > > It is excessively wordy and uses the word "possibility" twice. I would suggest > breaking this into two separate sentences. > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
