| Pete, thanks for your review. Tom, thanks for your response. I entered a DISCUSS ballot to get the maturity level fixed.
Best, Alissa
Hi Pete,Thanks for the review. Comments inline.On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 11:02 AM Pete Resnick via Datatracker<noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
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-6man-icmp-limits-07
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2020-02-17
IETF LC End Date: 2020-02-25
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
Summary:
Nice simple document, easy to read, and pretty much ready to go. The one
"issue" I have listed below is a process nit, but one that should be taken care
of.
Thanks!
Major issues:
None.
Minor issues:
The tracker and the shepherd writeup say that the status of the document is
"Proposed Standard", but the header of the document says "Standard". That's why
the nits checker is complaining about downrefs; it thinks that this is going
for Full Standard. The header should either say "Standards Track" (which is
normal) or "Proposed Standard". (I hereby give Bob crap for missing that one as
shepherd, and I think he should owe me a beer. ;-) )
Will fix.
Nits/editorial comments:
The Abstract and 1.1 both indicate that a source host that receives such an
ICMPv6 error may be able to modify what it sends, which sounds to me like it
means "on the fly". While that might be true, it seems more likely to me that
it will be used for diagnostics to modify future behavior of either the sender
or the receiver at a later date, as mentioned in 4.2. I think it's worth
mentioning up at the top.
Yes, I would expect these are most useful for offline diagnostics atleast at the beginning. Will mention that.
Section 1.3: You should probably update to the RFC 8174 text.
Okay.Section 5.1: "RECOMMENDS" isn't one of the keywords. It's not a problem in
itself, but if people search the document for the keywords (and they do),
they'll miss this one. Suggest reformulating the sentence to use RECOMMENDED.
Will fix, thanks for being pedantic!
_______________________________________________Gen-art mailing listGen-art@xxxxxxxxhttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
|
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
