Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-13
review-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-13-genart-lc-sparks-2019-04-10-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 15) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2019-04-12 | |
| Requested | 2019-03-22 | |
| Draft last updated | 2019-04-10 | |
| Completed reviews |
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -12 by Robert Wilton
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -13 by Aanchal Malhotra (diff) Tsvart Last Call review of -13 by Wesley Eddy (diff) Genart Last Call review of -13 by Robert Sparks (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -13 by Dan Romascanu (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Robert Sparks |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-13-genart-lc-sparks-2019-04-10 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 13 (document currently at 15) | |
| Review result | Ready | |
| Review completed: | 2019-04-10 |
Review
review-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-13-genart-lc-sparks-2019-04-10
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-13 Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: 2019-04-10 IETF LC End Date: 2019-04-12 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: Ready for publication as a proposed standard Nits/editorial comments: The abstract is quite terse. Please consider expanding it to something that stands better by itself. The sentence that starts "Driving these requirements" in the introduction does not follow where it sits in the paragraph. There is no antecedent for "these requirements". I suggest replacing the sentence with "Requirements for these mechanisms are captured in [RFC7923]. The second sentence in the first paragraph of section 3 is a run-on. I suggest s/2.4, the/2.4. The/