Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-taps-minset-08

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Thu, 06 September 2018 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 123EC130DE2; Thu, 6 Sep 2018 13:07:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-taps-minset.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, taps@ietf.org
Subject: Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-taps-minset-08
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.83.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <153626446703.11686.5776675418414453097@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2018 13:07:47 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/eTKUHfw3NxnCb8FE9cZQv3JIle8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2018 20:07:47 -0000

Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review result: Ready

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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-taps-minset-08
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2018-09-06
IETF LC End Date: 2018-09-04
IESG Telechat date: 2018-09-13

Summary: Ready for publication as an Informational RFC

(Repeating one thing from my Last Call review for the benefit of the IESG):

This was a big effort, and it appears that it was helpful to the folks
working on the interface document, but it's not clear how it will be
useful to implementers. The IESG should consider  whether this, like
requirements documents, needs to be in the RFC series. The most likely
use I can see in the future would be for historians, and a different
and shorter presentation would serve them better.