Med, My pleasure! Would that all drafts I review were this good ....
Cheers, Andy On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 1:27 AM <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> wrote: > Hi Andy, > > > > Many thanks for the review. Much appreciated. > > > > The review will be acked in the next iteration as you can see in the diff: > https://tinyurl.com/l3nm-latest > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > *De :* Andrew G. Malis [mailto:agma...@gmail.com] > *Envoyé :* mardi 20 juillet 2021 19:31 > *À :* <rtg-...@ietf.org> <rtg-...@ietf.org> > *Cc :* Routing Directorate <rtg-...@ietf.org>; > draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm....@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org > *Objet :* RtgDir review: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-10 > > > > Hello, > > I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. > The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related > drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes > on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to > the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please > see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir > > Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it > would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last > Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through > discussion or by updating the draft. > > Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-10 > Reviewer: Andy Malis > Review Date: 2021-07-20 > IETF LC End Date: 2021-08-06 > Intended Status: Proposed Standard > > Summary: > > No issues found. This document is ready for publication. > > Comments: > > This draft has been through 11 revisions and has been twice reviewed by > the Yang Doctors. All of its normative references save one have already > been published, and the one draft normative reference is also in IETF Last > Call. In addition, the very useful Appendix B shows that there are at least > four publicly-announced implementations in various stages of progress. This > all indicates the maturity of this draft as it enters IETF Last Call. > > I found the commentary and model overview easy to read, and if I were > writing an implementation, I would certainly appreciate the provisioning > examples in Appendix A. > > I also appreciated the comparison to RFC 8299. > > Although I'm not a SECDIR reviewer, I found the Security Considerations > section to be substantive. > > To conclude, I consider this draft ready for publication. > > Regards, > Andy > > > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu > ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete > this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
