Last Call Review of draft-ietf-cdni-requirements-12
review-ietf-cdni-requirements-12-genart-lc-holmberg-2013-11-19-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-cdni-requirements
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-11-26
Requested 2013-11-06
Authors Kent Leung, Yiu Lee
Draft last updated 2013-11-19
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -12 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -13 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Shawn Emery (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -12 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Review review-ietf-cdni-requirements-12-genart-lc-holmberg-2013-11-19
Reviewed rev. 12 (document currently at 17)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2013-11-19

Review
review-ietf-cdni-requirements-12-genart-lc-holmberg-2013-11-19






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-cdni-requirements-12




 




Reviewer:                           Christer Holmberg




 




Review Date:                     18 November 2013




 




IETF LC End Date:             26 November 2013




 




IETF Telechat Date:         12 December 2013




 




Summary:  The document is well written, with one minor issue that the authors might want to address.




 




Major Issues: None




 




Minor Issues:




 




Q_GEN: 




 




The document defines priority of each requirement as either [HIGH], [MED] or [LOW], which is fine. But, in addition to that, depending on the priority, the requirement text uses either “shall”, “should” or “may”.





 




Wouldn’t it be more clean to use consistent terminology (e.g. “shall”) in the actual requirement text, as the priority is anyway indicated separately?




 




 




Editorial nits: None