Erik - Thanx for the review. Responses inline. > -----Original Message----- > From: Erik Kline <ek@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 11:30 PM > To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx > Cc: idr@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp.all@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-15 > > Reviewer: Erik Kline > Review result: Ready with Nits > > 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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp-?? > Reviewer: Erik Kline > Review Date: 2018-12-12 > IETF LC End Date: 2018-12-12 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: Seems like a fairly straightforward detailing of TLVs the meanings > of > which are defined elsewhere. > > Major issues: [obvious] A primary normative reference is itself still a draft. > I expect they'll get published together. > [Les:] The reference to draft-ietf-lsr-isis-rfc7810bis (rather than current RFC7810) was put in at the request of the AD. You are correct that this introduces a dependency between this document and 7810bis and this document will remain in MISSREF state until 7810bis is published. As both drafts are in the review process we do not expect there to be a significant delay. In any case this isn't a "major" issue is it? It seems worthwhile to have the reference be to the newer version of 7810 - and this certainly isn’t the only case where one document is dependent on another which has yet to be published. > Minor issues: None. > > Nits/editorial comments: Some wording on Section 3 could use some > readability > cleanup, perhaps. > > [1] "represent the state and resources availability" does not somehow scan > well > for me. "state and resource availability"? "state and availability of > resources"? > [Les:] "state and resource availability" is fine with me. > [2] "are assumed to have all the required security and authentication > mechanism" also seems like it could read more smoothly. "are assumed to > have > implemented all require security and authentication mechanisms..."? > [Les:] How about "assumed to support all the required..." ?? If you are OK with the suggestions I will publish an updated version very soon. Les > I'm sure the editors will have better ideas. >
