[RTG-DIR]Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work-14

Stewart Bryant via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 01 July 2024 17:32 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Stewart Bryant via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <171985514808.489859.4306927303061722111@dt-datatracker-5f88556585-g8gwj>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2024 10:32:28 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: TQUHPXWWWGM4OVPAXKD24A5LLP3ZP6R7
CC: draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org
Reply-To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Subject: [RTG-DIR]Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work-14
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/tNR8mPj4egK_GiulfSGR4iSS9AY>

Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review result: Ready

This is a well written document and is OK for publication.

I do have one concern, and that it is a rich soup of three/four/five letter
acronyms and it is very difficult to verify that all are either (a) formally
exempt from the need for expansion in
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=abbrev_list, or (b) have been
expanded elsewhere in the text. This might be best addressed by including a
glossary early in the document in which all the acronyms are expanded and
ideally referenced. This would make the document more accessible to an audience
that is not already familiar with the content.

[RTG-DIR]Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-te… Stewart Bryant via Datatracker
[RTG-DIR]Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-iet… Linyi (Yi)