> On Jan 4, 2024, at 07:00, Lars Eggert <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Vijay, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document. Yes - it was good to get rid of the line numbers in the normative pseudocode as they served no purpose. Thanks, Acee > > Lars > > >> On Dec 18, 2023, at 20:51, 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. >> This is the first time I have seen such adornment of code with line numbers >> outside of the use of such line numbers in the Basic programming language. >> However, the document seems inconsistent in that it does not appear to use >> similar line numbers in the pseudo-code in Section 7.1 and 7.2, for instance. >> I would advise uniformity in adoring code if possible. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gen-art mailing list >> Gen-art@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
