Last Call Review of draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-12
review-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-12-genart-lc-korhonen-2016-03-22-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 20)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-03-22
Requested 2016-03-10
Authors Jan Seedorf, Jon Peterson, Stefano Previdi, Ray van Brandenburg, Kevin Ma
Draft last updated 2016-03-22
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -12 by Jouni Korhonen (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Brian Weis (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -12 by Rick Casarez (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Jouni Korhonen
State Completed
Review review-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-12-genart-lc-korhonen-2016-03-22
Reviewed rev. 12 (document currently at 20)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2016-03-22

Review
review-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-12-genart-lc-korhonen-2016-03-22

Hi Kevin,

Ok. That’s fine then (probably the mailstones needs to be updated to reflect that decision). I just noticed I sent the review to ops-dir instead of gen-art.. ;-) Now replying to the right list.

- Jouni


> On 26 Mar 2016, at 19:37, Kevin Ma J <kevin.j.ma at ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jouni,
> 
>  Thank you for the review.  I agree with all your comments and will address them in the next version, once submissions reopen.
> 
>  With respect to your question:
> 
>> o Why this to-be-RFC is under Informational and not Standard Track? The
>> charter says: "Dec 2016 - Submit specification of the CDNI Footprint &
>> Capabilities Advertisement interface to IESG as Proposed Standard"
> 
>  This draft does not specify the actual protocol, only the semantics and requirements for the protocol.  There are two additional drafts to follow, with the actual protocol specification.  Based on discussion with our AD, it was decided that this draft should stay Informational.
> 
> thanx!
> 
> --  Kevin J. Ma
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jouni [

mailto:jouni.nospam

 at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2016 10:27 PM
>> To: ops-dir at ietf.org; draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-
>> semantics.all at ietf.org
>> Cc: Jouni
>> Subject: OPS-DIR review of draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-
>> semantics-12
>> 
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft (draft-ietf-cdni-
>> footprint-capabilities-semantics-12). 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 <​

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>> 
>> This draft is ready for publication as a Informational RFC with some tiny
>> nits. As I am no expert on CDNI my comments are not much on the substance
>> of the technical side of this draft. I did not spot any inconsistencies,
>> though.
>> 
>> IDnits:
>> o The comments that IDnits give will be automatically fixed when a new
>> revision of this document is provided.
>> 
>> Other comments:
>> o term ‘dCDN’ is never introduced properly like it was done in a case of
>> ‘uCDN’.
>> o Line 139 mentions “.., the RFC says..” without giving the RFC number.
>> This paragraph is under the context of RFC6707 but I would still say in
>> explicitly.
>> o Lines 271-272 and 522-523 refer to CDNI charter for reasons why
>> something is not done. I would not recommend referencing against the
>> existing charter as the charter is bound to change and then such
>> references either lose their importance or make it hard to track the
>> specific charter the text that was in effect that time.
>> o RTMP is never expanded or referenced.
>> o Why this to-be-RFC is under Informational and not Standard Track? The
>> charter says: "Dec 2016 - Submit specification of the CDNI Footprint &
>> Capabilities Advertisement interface to IESG as Proposed Standard"
>> 
>> - Jouni