On 09-Mar-23 05:30, Matthias Kovatsch wrote:
Dear Anima WG, co-chairs, and authors
I started my shepherd review of draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm. I currently see the
need for some restructuring to make the draft clearer to the reader and easier
to implement. Hence my review is done as work-in-progress pull request in the
GitHub repo of the draft [1].
Including this:
Contains requirements discussion: Usually this happens in separate, information
documents.
I've never understood the advantage of separating the requirements discussion,
which is sometimes essential to correctly understand a protocol design. IMHO
this requirements section is quite short and makes the following architectural
discussion much easier to understand.
Brian
Comments by Toerless have been captured as issues by the draft authors and will
be resolved after the pull request is merged; where possible, they can be
addressed in iterations going into the shepherd-review branch [2].
Best wishes,
Matthias
[1] https://github.com/anima-wg/anima-brski-prm/pull/85
<https://github.com/anima-wg/anima-brski-prm/pull/85>
[2] https://github.com/anima-wg/anima-brski-prm/tree/shepherd-review
<https://github.com/anima-wg/anima-brski-prm/tree/shepherd-review>
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
