Last Call Review of draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-12
review-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-12-opsdir-lc-casarez-2016-04-10-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 20)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2016-04-19
Requested 2016-03-11
Authors Jan Seedorf, Jon Peterson, Stefano Previdi, Ray van Brandenburg, Kevin Ma
Draft last updated 2016-04-10
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 Rick Casarez
State Completed
Review review-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-12-opsdir-lc-casarez-2016-04-10
Reviewed rev. 12 (document currently at 20)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2016-04-10

Review
review-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-12-opsdir-lc-casarez-2016-04-10

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