Hi Kyle, thanks for the review. The intended RFC status was discussed by the WG. This draft describes node internal implementations. Other implementations may be possible with same external observable behavior. This is why "informational" status was selected. Thanks & Cheers Bala'zs -----Original Message----- From: Kyle Rose via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 2:29 PM To: tsv-art@xxxxxxxx Cc: detnet@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-detnet-pof.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx Subject: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-pof-06 Reviewer: Kyle Rose Review result: Ready This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF discussion list for information. When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-art@xxxxxxxx if you reply to or forward this review. This document is Ready to publish as an informational RFC. Other reviewers (particularly Henning from rtgdir) adequately covered nits and minor issues. My one remaining question (perhaps answered in the past within the WG or on the mailing list) is why this and other documents describing proposed solutions within the DetNet problem space are being published as informational rather than as experimental or standards track. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
