Dear Paul, Thank you for the review and your overall impression on the document. I made some inline comments to your findings. We will address them in the next version of the document. > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 6:08 PM > To: draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm.all@xxxxxxxx; anima@xxxxxxxx > Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@xxxxxxxx>; last-call@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm-17 > > > Document: draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm-17 > Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat > Review Date: 2025-01-27 > IETF LC End Date: 2025-01-30 > IESG Telechat date: ? > > Summary: > > This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed > before publication. > > This was this reviewer's first introduction to anima. As a result, this review is > limited to document form, not technical details. > > It is a very well written document. It is however forbiddingly long and intimidating > to read. It has a very distinct repetitive structure. (Many twisty little passages, all > different, but very similar.) It seems like it could perhaps be represented in a more > concise way that would be easier to read. But I don't have a specific suggestion. > > ISSUES: 0 > NITS: 3 > > 1) NIT: Non-RFC2606-compliant FQDN > > Section 6.1.2 (Discovery of the Pledge) uses an FQDN, "_brski-pledge._tcp.local", > that triggers an IdNits non-RFC2606-compliant FQDN warning. This is perhaps > mitigated somewhat by being a local FQDN. > > I don't have a specific recommendation whether or not to change this. [stf -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
