In any case, I’m not enamored with the line numbers in the pseudo code (irrespective of whether or not they are adoring). These were introduced in RFC 5798 but I don’t see any references to these line numbers (as their existence would imply) and unless anyone sees compelling reason to keep them, I’m going to remove them. Thanks, Acee > On Dec 18, 2023, at 13:53, Vijay Gurbani <vijay.gurbani@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Sorry, I meant "adorning code" instead of "adoring code" in the last > sentence of the nits/editorial comments. > > Thanks, > > - vijay > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 12:51 PM Vijay Gurbani via Datatracker < > noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani >> Review result: 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://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc5798bis-14 >> Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani >> Review Date: 2023-12-18 >> IETF LC End Date: 2023-12-11 >> IESG Telechat date: 2024-01-04 >> >> Summary: The I-D is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. The >> document >> is well written, with reasons why critical choices in the development of >> the >> protocol have been made. >> >> Major issues: 0 >> >> Minor issues: 0 >> >> Nits/editorial comments: 1 >> >> Nits: I am not sure what the line numbers in Section 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 mean -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
