Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-10

["Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>]

Med,

My pleasure! Would that all drafts I review were this good ....

Cheers,
Andy


On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 1:27 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Andy,
>
>
>
> Many thanks for the review. Much appreciated.
>
>
>
> The review will be acked in the next iteration as you can see in the diff:
> https://tinyurl.com/l3nm-latest
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Med
>
>
>
> *De :* Andrew G. Malis [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Envoyé :* mardi 20 juillet 2021 19:31
> *À :* <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
> *Cc :* Routing Directorate <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *Objet :* RtgDir review: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-10
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
> The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
> drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes
> on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to
> the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please
> see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
>
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
> would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last
> Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
> discussion or by updating the draft.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-10
> Reviewer: Andy Malis
> Review Date: 2021-07-20
> IETF LC End Date: 2021-08-06
> Intended Status: Proposed Standard
>
> Summary:
>
> No issues found. This document is ready for publication.
>
> Comments:
>
> This draft has been through 11 revisions and has been twice reviewed by
> the Yang Doctors. All of its normative references save one have already
> been published, and the one draft normative reference is also in IETF Last
> Call. In addition, the very useful Appendix B shows that there are at least
> four publicly-announced implementations in various stages of progress. This
> all indicates the maturity of this draft as it enters IETF Last Call.
>
> I found the commentary and model overview easy to read, and if I were
> writing an implementation, I would certainly appreciate the provisioning
> examples in Appendix A.
>
> I also appreciated the comparison to RFC 8299.
>
> Although I'm not a SECDIR reviewer, I found the Security Considerations
> section to be substantive.
>
> To conclude, I consider this draft ready for publication.
>
> Regards,
> Andy
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
>