Hi, Mallory: Thanks for your review and suggestions for the security consideration part of this document. I have added the corresponding descriptions for the referred RFC documents and hope they can aid the reader to deep more thoroughly based on their interested. I have updated substantial editorial improvements based on the checklist of "Grammarly".
Wish the update version can help other IESG members to review this document more fluently. If you have any other concerns, please let me know, I will address them accordingly. Best Regards Aijun Wang China Telecom -----邮件原件----- 发件人: forwardingalgori...@ietf.org [mailto:forwardingalgori...@ietf.org] 代表 Mallory Knodel via Datatracker 发送时间: 2024年8月5日 22:19 收件人: gen-...@ietf.org 抄送: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip....@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org 主题: [Pce] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-32 Reviewer: Mallory Knodel 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 <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. Document: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-32 Reviewer: Mallory Knodel Review Date: 2024-08-05 IETF LC End Date: 2024-08-12 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: I've reviewed this document and I want to focus my feedback on the security considerations section, though there are several nits within the document that I imagine will be picked up during the editorial process. Major issues: None. Minor issues: Security considerations are helpful because they provide pointers to other RFCs that contain relevant security considerations in related drafts. However, a reader does not have a useful overview of what those security issues are. I would encourage the authors to provide a short summary of the security considerations for this specification as well as linking to the primary source that goes into more depth about those considerations and how to mitigate them. That will give the reader more of an idea about which additional documents they should read, instead of asking them to read all of them and decide for themselves. I believe the experts who have authored this specification could provide more guidance to implementers about what are the security issues with this specification as well as guidance on where to look for deeper explanations (eg the already cited RFCs). Nits/editorial comments: The document requires significant and thorough copyediting, which would be nice to do before passing along to the RFC Editor. Automated spelling and grammar tools could catch many of these. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
