From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-teas-interconnected-te-info-exchange.all@ietf.org,
 General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <1ee5d25d-d12c-1b0e-739d-25921fab6344@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 May 2016 08:21:42 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/h-SQRZjNTd49jZUWdvzpbxbTc1o>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART telechat review of
 draft-ietf-teas-interconnected-te-info-exchange-06
Precedence: list

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-teas-interconnected-te-info-exchange-06.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2016-05-14
IETF LC End Date: 2016-05-10
IESG Telechat date: 2016-05-19

Summary: Ready
--------

Comments:
---------

1) Thanks for fixing numerous points from my Last Call review.

2) I also raised the issue of whether BCP is the right status, in view
of sections 5 - 9 which refer to open questions and  possible future
protocol extensions. I would prefer to see these sections clearly
labelled as *not* part of the normative content. After feedback from
the authors, I don't see this as a show-stopper, but I think that
readers expecting a concrete description of a solution will be a
little surprised.