Stewart, thanks for your reviews. Zahed, thanks for your responses. I entered a No Objection ballot. I think the limitations for controlled environments are described clearly enough. Alissa > On Mar 6, 2019, at 2:46 PM, Datatracker on behalf of Stewart Bryant <ietf-secretariat-reply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Stewart Bryant > Review result: Ready with Issues > > 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 wait for direction from your > document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-09 > Reviewer: Stewart Bryant > Review Date: 2019-03-06 > IETF LC End Date: 2019-02-11 > IESG Telechat date: 2019-03-07 > > Summary: > > I remain concerned as to whether the advice regarding the use of these tests on > or in proximity to production networks is strict enough, > > Major issues: > Although the security section has been revised since my review of -08, I remain > concerned as to whether the advice against testing of production networks is > strict enough. > > I know that performance testing on production networks has given problems in > the past, and this is really no different. > > The OPS and SEC ADs should satisfy themselves as to whether the new text is > adequate in this regards. > > Minor issues: none > > Nits/editorial comments: > > ** There are 6 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one > being 4 characters in excess of 72. > > ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the > recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 > keywords. > > RFC 2119 keyword, line 458: '...didate proposals MAY show the effectiv...' > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
