[trill] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-trill-ecn-support-05

Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net> Mon, 05 February 2018 18:22 UTC

Return-Path: <sbanks@encrypted.net>
X-Original-To: trill@ietf.org
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A6C312762F; Mon, 5 Feb 2018 10:22:01 -0800 (PST)
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-trill-ecn-support.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, trill@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.71.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <151785492150.5822.7062354913097657938@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2018 10:22:01 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/hPy1-JycuzMy4FU_wsIOWaJ0Beo>
Subject: [trill] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-trill-ecn-support-05
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <trill.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/trill/>
List-Post: <mailto:trill@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2018 18:22:01 -0000

Reviewer: Sarah Banks
Review result: Has Nits

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.

Status: Ready with Nits

Overall, I think this is a well written document, that could flow better with
minor revisions. The Abstract and the Introduction include the exact same
information; I think the document would benefit from having more information in
the Introduction section, something that expands upon the current text, or
discusses the use case, and why I care.  From time to time I find myself
wanting to red line the text, for missing words (like "the") - a style
preference perhaps, but flowing english sentences make a document read easier.
A lack of discussion on ECT (1) and ECT (0) (Table 1) made this reader stop and
google; a bit of conversation here would have been helpful. Last, NITS is
mostly clean, but not entirely. I applaud the call out to ongoing work, and
Appendix A, but a minor tweak to the doc from Nits output before you send this
into the queue would be helpful.