[tsvwg] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11-09

Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net> Wed, 11 October 2017 00:23 UTC

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: tsvwg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11.all@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <150768143614.24836.9833010909595161108@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:23:56 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/KAuGRQ0AEX84RqK3fEbFgCvDh3g>
Subject: [tsvwg] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11-09

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.

Status: Ready

Overall, this is a well written document, explaining the problem, discussing
the concerns, and makes proposals. As a reader, I appreciated the discussion
around the IEEE/IETF issues, for lack of a better term, and the discussion
around the existing RFCs, leading to a clear explanation of the task at hand,
even though it's pretty lengthy. Kudos to the authors (or WG?) for considering
an applicability statement. Extra kudos to the authors for Section 1.4 (I might
have to steal this idea too). Overall, I thought it was clear, reads well, and
is ready to go.

A small note; nits is not clean, and I'd like to see us get into a habit of
sending clean nits drafts into the queue. Please resolve your open nits issues.

Thanks
Sarah

[tsvwg] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-tsv… Sarah Banks