Stewart, thanks for your review. I entered a No Objection ballot. Comments below. > On Jun 26, 2019, at 5:57 AM, Stewart Bryant via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Stewart Bryant > 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-manet-dlep-latency-extension-04 > Reviewer: Stewart Bryant > Review Date: 2019-06-26 > IETF LC End Date: 2019-07-08 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: A very simple well written document ready for publication except for > one nit and one question. > > Major issues: None. > > Minor issues: > > A 64-bit unsigned integer, representing the longest transmission > delay, in microseconds, that a packet encounters as it is > transmitted over the link. > > SB> That is a range 0..58000 years. I wonder if it would have been > SB> useful to have used ns at a cost of limiting the range to > SB> only 0..58 years? I can see the value in this, but presumably consistency with the units for the base spec that defines the latency data item is more important for implementation simplicity. Alissa > > ========== > > Nits/editorial comments: > > DLEP Latency Range Extension > draft-ietf-manet-dlep-latency-extension-04 > > Abstract > > This document defines an extension to the DLEP protocol to provide > the range of latency that may be experienced on a link. > > SB> I am not sure what the policy WRT to RFC titles is, but DLEP is > SB> not well known and should be expanded in the abstract. > ============== > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
