[Detnet] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn-05
Kyle Rose via Datatracker <email@example.com> Mon, 01 February 2021 16:53 UTC
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADB523A12D8; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 08:53:15 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Kyle Rose via Datatracker <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Reply-To: Kyle Rose <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2021 08:53:15 -0800
Subject: [Detnet] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-tsn-05
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <detnet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/detnet>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2021 16:53:16 -0000
Reviewer: Kyle Rose Review result: Ready with Nits This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF discussion list for information. When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC email@example.com if you reply to or forward this review. This document is ready with nits. At a high level, the document describes the relationship between DetNet flows and the underlying layer 2 network when that network is an IEEE time-sensitive network, which is interesting because both DetNet and TSN require explicit routing and resource allocation at different layers. Two nits: 1. There are numerous and often significant grammatical errors throughout the document. The working group should perform a scrub of the text to minimize editorial load on the RFC Editor. 2. Informational documents containing (lowercase, non-authoritative) normative language should provide clear references to corresponding normative sources for all such statements. Ideally, to minimize future document updates, replicating such language in non-authoritative documents is not advisable. That said, you should consider whether this document is really informational or should instead be standards-track.
- [Detnet] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-de… Kyle Rose via Datatracker
- Re: [Detnet] Tsvart last call review of draft-iet… Balázs Varga A