Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani Review result: Ready with Issues 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-rsalz-2028bis-05 Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani Review Date: 2022-02-18 IETF LC End Date: 2022-03-07 IESG Telechat date: 2022-03-10 Summary: Ready with one major issue and one nit. Major issues: 1 - S3.7, first paragraph: I don't think it is accurate to characterize the IETF as focusing on "shorter-term issues of engineering and standards making." If the contrast is being made to the "longer-term research issues" of IRTF, then the comparison is flawed. Research can be short term and engineering decisions can have impact over the long term; it is not our place to characterize research as long term and engineering as short term. Who arbitrates what constitutes long term and short term? Can a short-term engineering idea in the IETF have as much impact as a long running IRTF group? I suspect the answer is yes. For these reasons, I am not sure we should consider ourselves to be an arbiter of these things. I believe that first paragraph will read just as well if both the qualifiers "longer-term" and "shorter-term" were taken out, and I would make a case that we should do so. Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: - S3.5: Does "RFC Advisory Board (RSAB)" expand to "RFC Series Advisory Board"? The "Series" is missing; in the previous line RSWG expands to "RFC Series Working Group", so I expect a symmetry. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
