Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing-revive Title: Destination/Source Routing Reviewer: Jacqueline McCall Review result: Has Nits
Document: draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing-revive-04 Title: Destination/Source Routing Reviewer: Jacqueline McCall Review result: Has nits I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. The summary of the review is “Ready with nits”. Overall, I think it’s a well-structured document with clear use cases and implementation guidance. Two areas identified for further review are: • Normative references: Sections 5.5 and 5.6 use MUST/RECOMMENDED language tied to RFC 6724 and RFC 8028. These should probably be promoted to normative references. • Editorial: o Multiple spelling errors have been identified eg. “redundandy” → redundancy, “transfering” → transferring, “neccessary” → necessary, etc. o There are some inconsistencies switching between different global spellings for the words "behavior" and "behaviour" and inconsistent switching between "nexthop" and "next-hop". _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
