Re: [Last-Call] [Int-dir] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-17

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Thank you Donald,

I just balloted a NO OBJECTION notably based on your Int-dir review.

Regards

-éric

On 27/11/2021, 03:19, "Int-dir on behalf of Donald Eastlake via Datatracker" <int-dir-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

    Reviewer: Donald Eastlake
    Review result: Ready with Issues

    I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for
    draft-ietf-alto-cdni-request-routing-alto-17. These comments were written
    primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and
    shepherd should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from
    any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call
    comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/.

    Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as NO
    OBJECTION.

    The following are issues I found with this document that SHOULD be corrected
    before publication and some comments:

       I am not particularly familiar with the technology in this draft os I may
       have missed things.

       Abstract: I believe it should say "the exact protocol is not specified"
       adding "not".

       Section 3.7.1: The second paragraph of this section is one very long
       sentence that I found confusing and which may be inconsistent. Perhaps a
       structured list would be better than simple text.

       Section 6.1.1.2: Seems a bit imprecise. I suggest adding at the end "as a
       decimal number without leading zeros".

       I was favorably impressed by the relatively complete information included
       for the Authors in the Authors' Addresses Section. I wish more drafts did
       this.

    The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text improvements)
    with the document:

       PID should be expanded on first use. Although, as far as I can see, other
       acronyms are appropriately expanded on first use. the document might benefit
       from a terminology section (maybe 1.1 or 2.3) as not everyone may read the
       document sequentially and remember all the expansions.

       Section 2.2, 2nd *'ed paragraph, "ALTO maps can be signed" adding "be".

       Section 3.6: I don't think the following text is needed and it could be
       deleted. It merely expresses the default that later IETF documents can
       modify earlier IETF documents.
                                                     There may be other
          documents extending BaseAdvertisementObject and additional CDNI
          capabilities.  They are outside the scope of this document.  To
          support them, future documents can extend the specification defined
          in this document.

       Section 3.7.1:  /// -> //

       Section 6.2.1: "to define" -> "defining"

       Section 10: It is common to include the same information for Contributors as
       is included for Authors in the Authors' Addresses section but that has not
       been done.

       There are a few addition suggestions that I will send directly to the
       authors.

       Really trivial: when you have
         "xyz": stuff
    for various values of xyz and stuff, there is no consistency in whether or not
    there is a space before the colon.



    _______________________________________________
    Int-dir mailing list
    Int-dir@xxxxxxxx
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir

-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux