Last Call Review of draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-15
review-ietf-cdni-metadata-15-opsdir-lc-jiang-2016-07-11-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-cdni-metadata |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 21) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2016-07-05 | |
| Requested | 2016-06-20 | |
| Authors | Ben Niven-Jenkins, Rob Murray, Matt Caulfield, Kevin Ma | |
| Draft last updated | 2016-07-11 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -18 by Meral Shirazipour
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -19 by Meral Shirazipour (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -18 by Dacheng Zhang (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -15 by Sheng Jiang (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Sheng Jiang |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-cdni-metadata-15-opsdir-lc-jiang-2016-07-11 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 15 (document currently at 21) | |
| Review result | Ready | |
| Review completed: | 2016-07-11 |
Review
review-ietf-cdni-metadata-15-opsdir-lc-jiang-2016-07-11
Hi, all, I have reviewed draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-18 as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. This Standards Track document defines a base set of CDNI metadata and the protocol for exchanging that metadata. I think this document is ready for publication. Here are a few minor comments: The example of footprint object has only The document has examples using IPv4. Because the other parts of this document does have IPv6 example, I think this is probably a mistake rather than not supporting IPv6 here on purpose (if it is on purpose, an explanation for reasons are necessary). Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5861 and RFC 6707. Best regards, Sheng