Robert, thanks for your review. Reshad, thanks for your response. I entered a No Objection ballot. Alissa > On Apr 12, 2019, at 5:12 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrahman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > Thank you for the review, please see inline. > > On 2019-04-10, 12:17 PM, "Robert Sparks via Datatracker" <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > 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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-13 > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review Date: 2019-04-10 > IETF LC End Date: 2019-04-12 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: Ready for publication as a proposed standard > > Nits/editorial comments: > > The abstract is quite terse. Please consider expanding it to something that > stands better by itself. > TBH I'm not sure what else to add. I'll discuss with the other authors. > > The sentence that starts "Driving these requirements" in the introduction does > not follow where it sits in the paragraph. There is no antecedent for "these > requirements". I suggest replacing the sentence with "Requirements for these > mechanisms are captured in [RFC7923]. > Makes sense, I'll make the change. > > The second sentence in the first paragraph of section 3 is a run-on. I suggest > s/2.4, the/2.4. The/ > Sure. > > Regards, > Reshad. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
