Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet-04
review-ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet-04-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-12-01-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-12-04
Requested 2015-11-19
Draft last updated 2015-12-01
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Susan Hares (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Review review-ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet-04-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-12-01
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 07)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2015-12-01

Review
review-ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet-04-genart-lc-holmberg-2015-12-01






I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>




Document:                                                         draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet-04.txt




Reviewer:                                                           Christer Holmberg




Review Date:                                                     1 December 2015




IETF LC End Date:                                             4 December 2015




IETF Telechat Date:                                         17 December 2015




Summary:           The document is well written, and almost ready for publication. However, I have some general editorial comments that I’d like the authors to
 address.




Major Issues: None




Minor Issues: None




Editorial Issues:




 




General:




 




QG_1:




 




Throughout the document, there are places where the text say “We follow”, “We say”, etc. I suggest to talk about the “document” instead of “We”.




 




I also wonder whether all the “We says are needed.





 




 




QG_2:




 




The Abstract says that the document updates RFCs 6513, 6514, and 6625. However, there is no dedicated section(s) which defines the updates.




 




I also think the Introduction should contain some general overview text on what is updated.




 




If possible, it would also be good to have dedicated “Updates to RFC XXXX” chapters, so that people can easily find what exactly has been updated.




 




 




QG_3:




 




The Abstract and Introduction say “Previous RFCs”. I suggest to list the relevant RFCs instead.




 




Something like:




 




                “

RFC 6513 and RFC6514 specify the procedures…”