Matt:
Would you please review version-04 , and let me know if you feel it resolves all your comments? We’re planning to send this to the AD after you confirm it resolves your comments. Sue From: rtg-dir [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Zhuangyan (Yan) Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 1:25 AM To: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB); [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-03.txt Hi Bocci, Thanks for your comments. We’ve uploaded the new version -04 and believe it resolve your comments. Many thanks to people’s kind help on this new version : ). Best Regards, Yan From: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 7:31 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-03.txt Hello, I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology/ The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the stage that the document has reached. As this document is in working group last call, my focus for the review was to determine whether the document is ready to be published. Please consider my comments along with the other working group last call comments. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Document: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-03.txt Reviewer: Matthew Bocci Review Date: 5th January 2018 Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: I have significant concerns about this document. It needs more work before being submitted to the IESG. Comments: The rationale for this document is clear and I did not note any major technical comments. However, one major comment that I have is that the English grammar and usage is poor in some sections, and it is missing normal English articles in some places (a, an, the,…), making it hard to read. I would suggest that the authors go through the draft with a native English speaker to help resolve these before handing the draft to the IESG.
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
