Thank you Robert for the review, and thank you authors for the updates in -15! I have balloted no-obj for this document in today’s IESG telechat.
Jari On 21 Nov 2014, at 21:19, Robert Sparks <rjspa...@nostrum.com> wrote: > > 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>. > > Please wait for direction from your document shepherd > or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > Document: draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-15 > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review Date: 21-Nov-2014 > IETF LC End Date: > IESG Telechat date: 25-Nov-2014 > > Summary: Ready for publication as an Informational RFC > > Nits/editorial comments: > > This revision addresses my comments from IETF-LC on revision 14 (copied > below). > Thanks! > > RjS > > On 10/17/14 11:33 AM, Robert Sparks wrote: >> 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>. >> >> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments >> you may receive. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-14 >> Reviewer: Robert Sparks >> Review Date: 17-Oct-2014 >> IETF LC End Date: 27-Oct-2014 >> IESG Telechat date: not currently scheduled for any telechat >> >> Summary: Ready for publication as an Informational RFC but with nits that >> should be considered before publication >> >> Nits/editorial comments: >> >> There are 6 authors listed - please double-check the guidance in section >> 4.1.1 of RFC7322. >> If retaining all the authors still makes sense, please help Adrian by >> providing an argument >> that he can pass to the RFC Editor. >> >> The shepherd writeup indicates a solution ID is ready. I didn't check to see >> how the requirements >> listed here were reflected there. Would it make sense to provide a >> reference? (While I see no harm >> in publishing the document, it's not clear how doing so will be helpful if >> the requirements were >> uncontentious as the writeup implies. There are few enough of them that >> adding a short list in >> the mechanism document might be more effective.) >> >> Items 2 and 3 in section 3.4 are confusing as currently written. 2 seems to >> be talking >> about the case that the current path is still optimal. Is 3 trying to talk >> about the case >> where there is no path, not even the current path, that will work? If so the >> "(i.e., other >> than the current path)" in 3 doesn't make sense. >> >> Should you have captured a requirement that any mechanism implementing these >> requirements be extensible to allow for cases like polarization based >> multiplexing >> when they eventually come along? >> >> Please consider reordering the sentences in section 3.5 - the last sentence >> seems >> to be talking about the first paragraph? >> >> You say "mechanisms defined in this document" several times in section 4, >> but this >> document defines no mechanisms. >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
