Reviewer: Benjamin Schwartz Review result: Ready This draft is clearly written (barring some minor sentence structure and word choice issues) and covers the topic well. However, I do not see any value in publishing it as an RFC. As a "gap analysis", its value was principally in motivating the formation of a working group (i.e. SAVNET) and helping the participants to agree on their own terminology. This purpose has already been achieved, and is not enhanced by publication. Publishing the document in its current form might even have negative value, since the content will immediately be incorrect when draft-ietf-savnet-inter-domain-architecture is published and the "gap" is closed. My preference would be to fold this content into that draft, or retitle it "Purpose of the SAVNET Architecture" and adjust the content to present an explicitly historical note on why draft-ietf-savnet-inter-domain-architecture was needed. Nit: > it is difficult to require all access networks to deploy SAV simultaneously Please remove "simultaneously". The difficulty here is not in _synchronizing_ the deployment; it is merely in achieving it. -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
