Christer, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document. Lars > On 2022-8-23, at 10:31, Christer Holmberg via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Christer Holmberg > Review result: Almost 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-tsvwg-aqm-dualq-coupled-24 > > Reviewer: Christer Holmberg > Review Date: 2022-08-23 > IETF LC End Date: 2022-07-21 > IESG Telechat date: 2022-08-25 > > Summary: > > The content and technology of the document is outside the area of expertise, so > my comments are mainly related to the readability of the document. I list > everything as Nits/editorial issues, eventhough some could also be considered > Minor issues. > > Major issues: > > N/A > > Minor issues: > > N/A > > Nits/editorial comments: > > ABSTRACT: > > I think the Abstract is too long. Also, it starts with the "This specification > defines..." sentence. I think it should start with a few sentences on what the > problem is, and then indicate what the document defines in order to solve that > problem. > > INTRODUCTION (Section 1): > > In the beginning of the Section there is a "This document specifies a > framework..." statement. Then, there is a similar statement at the end of > Section 1.1., which is only supposed to describe the problem statement - not > the solution. There is also a Scope section (1.2) and a Features section (1.4), > but it is quite difficult to separate between Scope and Features. > > SECTION 2: > > It seems like the actual requirements for the framework are not presented until > Section 2.5. I think the requirements should come earlier, before the solution. > > SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS (Section 4): > > There is quite a bit of text in the Security Considerations. In general that is > not a bad thing :) > > My question is whether the content is actually about security? Much seem to be > more "operational" issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
