Last Call Review of draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-10
review-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-10-genart-lc-dupont-2019-05-13-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-05-21
Requested 2019-05-07
Authors JADHAV Rahul, Pascal Thubert, Rabi Sahoo, Zhen Cao
Draft last updated 2019-05-13
Completed reviews Iotdir Last Call review of -11 by Shwetha Bhandari (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Brian Weis (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -10 by Francis Dupont (diff)
Rtgdir Telechat review of -12 by Eric Gray (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -12 by Brian Weis (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Francis Dupont
State Completed
Review review-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-10-genart-lc-dupont-2019-05-13
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/5HJ_seg2z0Z03DtuHijTvGklVtA
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 17)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2019-05-13

Review
review-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-10-genart-lc-dupont-2019-05-13

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: Ready
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 2019/05/11
IETF LC End Date: 2019/05/21
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments: 
 - ToC page 2: bad padding in 2. and 2.1. titles in text format.

 - ToC page 2 and many other places: there is a problem with the
  "acknowledgement" word spelling: correct spelling is "acknowledgment"
  but the term is used both in the protocol including in the ToC and
  in the document for its acknowledgments usual section.

  I propose if the other protocol documents use the UK "acknowledgement"
  spelling to keep it for similar usages. In all cases the section title
  should be in US spelling so Acknowledgments.

 - 4.1 page 7, 4.4 5. page 12 and A.1 5. page 18: i.e. -> i.e.,

 - 4.3.1 page 10: atleast -> at least

 - 4.3.3 page 10: seqeunce -> sequence

 - 4.5.2 page 12: signalling -> signaling

 - 5 page 14 title: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments

 - from 6 page 14 to 6.3 page 16: Acknowledgement -> Acknowledgment

 - 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 pages 15 and 16: there is a problem with the textual
  rendering of qualities: I got "oBit number..." without a space between
  the "o" and the entry name "Bit number".

 - authors page 21: please consider China -> PR China or simply move
  from country names to ISO IS 3166 2 letter codes (for instance
  France -> FR)?

Regards

Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr

PS: as they are mostly aesthetic points there is no need to address them
by a new draft and BTW the RFC Editor can handle them.