[Ice] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-ice-trickle-18

Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net> Wed, 04 April 2018 20:39 UTC

Return-Path: <sbanks@encrypted.net>
X-Original-To: ice@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ice@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A5AD1241F8; Wed, 4 Apr 2018 13:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>
To: ops-dir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-ice-trickle.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, ice@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.77.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152287434396.24068.13184936471569396212@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 13:39:03 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ice/mYlp3DKOonJrxX5RjdTbzPGx_lw>
Subject: [Ice] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-ice-trickle-18
X-BeenThere: ice@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: "Interactive Connectivity Establishment \(ICE\)" <ice.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ice>, <mailto:ice-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ice/>
List-Post: <mailto:ice@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ice-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ice>, <mailto:ice-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 20:39:04 -0000

Reviewer: Sarah Banks
Review result: Ready

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

My apologies for the late review.
However, I found this document extremely well written, and clear, and concise.
Often I'll see docs that call out an issue where something isn't possible, but
don't give an example that underscores that point. This document was extremely
well rounded. Thanks for that. All in all, it was a good read, and it's ready
for publication.