Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10

[Charlie Perkins]

Hello Meral,

Regarding the following:

On 4/22/2021 5:45 PM, Meral Shirazipour via Datatracker wrote:

Section B1 says "Reclassified [RFC6998] and [RFC7416] as Informational."
RFC7416 was already Informational. What that a typo?
This is not part of the final RFC - I was just trying to follow the various
diffs of the document.




This just meant to say that a document which was previously listed as a 
Normative Reference was changed to be listed as an Informational 
Reference.  It doesn't affect anything about the actual referenced document.



Minor issues:
Other than some issues already reported on the list, the draft is a bit hard to
follow, Intro could be improved and the terminology was very long, maybe
presenting terms in category would help.


We will have to look at how this might be improved.  If you think of any 
more specific suggestions please send them also.


Naturally Yours,
Charlie P.


___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10

[Meral Shirazipour via Datatracker]

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
Review result: Ready with Issues

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

.

Document: draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-10
Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
Review Date: 2021-04-22
IETF LC End Date: 2021-03-31
IESG Telechat date: 2021-04-22

Summary: This draft is almost ready to be published as Standards Track RFC but
I have some comments.

Major issues:

Minor issues:
Other than some issues already reported on the list, the draft is a bit hard to
follow, Intro could be improved and the terminology was very long, maybe
presenting terms in category would help.

Nits/editorial comments:

Section B1 says "Reclassified [RFC6998] and [RFC7416] as Informational."
RFC7416 was already Informational. What that a typo?
This is not part of the final RFC - I was just trying to follow the various
diffs of the document.



___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art