Hi,
I looked at revision -07 This is a really big document and would probably benefit from a more detailed review than I was able to give it. But it looks fine and ready to progress to me. A couple of nits. Section 4.3 might usefully describe that this is an additional requirement. You might reference draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis instead of RFC6991. You'll be behind it in the queue, so you can safely use it as a normative reference. That'll be a bit more future-proof. Cheers, Adrian From: alto <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Jordi Ros Giralt Sent: 17 May 2023 06:41 To: [email protected] Subject: [alto] Call for volunteers to review 2nd WGLC for ALTO docs Hi ALTO WG: As you know, we are in the process of issuing the 2nd WGLC for two of the ALTO drafts (New Transport and OAM). Thank you to all of you who have been working hard to help get these documents completed, including all the detailed feedback provided by reviewers during the first WGLC. There is now a need (as mentioned by the chairs) to have as many eyes & volunteers review the docs to make sure they are in the best possible shape. I can volunteer to review both documents. Richard also volunteered, thank you Richard. We would like to suggest targeting two more volunteers. Could any of you help support this work? We are targeting 22/05 to complete this new round of revisions, as that's the target day for the 2nd WGLC. These are the docs: - New Transport: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport/ - OAM: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang/ Please feel free to forward this email if you know others (inside or ouside ALTO) who can help review the docs too. As we are working to wrap up the current charter, this is very important work to ensure the quality of the documents produced by ALTO. Thank you for your collaboration. Jordi, on behalf of ALTO
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
