Thank you Pete for your review. I will take your and Chris' reviews when considering the next steps.
Regards -éric -----Original Message----- From: Pete Resnick via Datatracker <[email protected]> Reply-To: Pete Resnick <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, 20 May 2020 at 18:03 To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dhc-problem-statement-of-mredhcpv6-05 Resent-From: <[email protected]> Resent-To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Eric Vyncke <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Bernie Volz <[email protected]> Resent-Date: Wednesday, 20 May 2020 at 18:03 Reviewer: Pete Resnick Review result: Not Ready 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 <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-dhc-problem-statement-of-mredhcpv6-05 Reviewer: Pete Resnick Review Date: 2020-05-20 IETF LC End Date: 2020-05-25 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: This document is not ready for publication. Major issues: Nowhere in the Introduction does this document explain its motivation: Why is a survey of these mechanisms important for the IETF to publish? It claims that it is doing "a detailed analysis" in order to "clarify the problems, design principles, and extract and unify the design specifications to help better solve the multi-requirement extension problems", but the rest of the document seems to do nothing more than describe extensions, not do any real analysis of design principles. And after reading the introduction, I still don't understand what a "multi-requirement extension" is (the term is never defined), nor do I know what the problem is with them. Unless the motivation for this document can be better explained, I do not see this document as being appropriate for publication. Minor issues: None. Nits/editorial comments: The entire document could use a good editorial scrub. There are quite a few grammatical issues. 3.2, 4.2.2, and 4.2.4 give lists of example implementations and options. These seem unnecessary. When particular examples are useful, of course they can be included, but simply long lists are not useful. The general model in 4.1 seems unnecessary; this is nothing that you wouldn't already know if you understand DHCP. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
