Dear Paul, I just realized my original email was not complete sent so, here the complete one:
Thank you for the review and your overall impression on the document. I made some inline comments to your findings. We will address them in the next version of the document. An intermediate version with incorporated updates is available on the ANIMA git (https://github.com/anima-wg/anima-brski-prm) I made some further comments inline > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu> > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 6:08 PM > To: draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm....@ietf.org; anima@ietf.org > Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-...@ietf.org>; last-c...@ietf.org > Subject: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm-17 > > 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. > > Document: draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm-17 > Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat > Review Date: 2025-01-27 > IETF LC End Date: 2025-01-30 > IESG Telechat date: ? > > Summary: > > This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be > fixed > before publication. > > This was this reviewer's first introduction to anima. As a result, this > review is limited > to document form, not technical details. > > It is a very well written document. It is however forbiddingly long and > intimidating > to read. It has a very distinct repetitive structure. (Many twisty little > passages, all > different, but very similar.) It seems like it could perhaps be represented > in a more > concise way that would be easier to read. But I don't have a specific > suggestion. [stf _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- anima@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to anima-le...@ietf.org
