wiki:RtgDirLastCallGuidance

Routing Directorate Last Call Review Template

To:

  • rtg-ads@…

Cc:

  • rtg-dir@…;
  • draft-name.all@…;
  • wg-mailing-list;

Subject:

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-name-version.txt
Reviewer: your-name
Review Date: date
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
Intended Status: copy-from-I-D

Summary:
Choose from this list...

  • No issues found. This document is ready for publication.
  • This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication.
  • I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication.
  • I have significant concerns about this document and recommend that the Routing ADs discuss these issues further with the authors.

Comments:

  • Please supply an overview of the draft quality and readability.
  • Include anything else that you think will be helpful toward understanding your review.

Major Issues:

  • Major issues are the type of concerns that will result in the document being blocked until they are resolved. The Routing ADs will become involved.
  • Please include all of the major issues you have found. Give as much context information as possible (e.g., section numbers, paragraph counts).
  • If you find no major issues, please write: "No major issues found."

Minor Issues:

  • Minor issues are concerns about clarity or technical accuracy that should be discussed and resolved before publication, but which would normally be resolved between the authors and the reviewers.
  • Please include all of the minor issues you have found. Give as much context information as possible (e.g., section numbers, paragraph counts).
  • If you find no minor issues, please write: "No minor issues found."

Nits:

  • Nits are editorial or layout items. They are things that would ideally be resolved before publication to make the document more readable, and may be raised now to save the RFC Editor work.
  • Usually a reviewer will not be looking for this type of issue, but may find some in the course of their review.
  • Please try to avoid raising esoteric questions of English usage. The RFC Editor will spot these, and it is not a wise use of time to discuss these things.
  • If you find no nits, please leave this section out.

Sample Routing Directorate Review

To: rtg-ads@…
Cc: rtg-dir@…; draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-reqs.all@…; pce@…
Subject: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-reqs-03.txt

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-pcep-p2mp-reqs-03.txt
Reviewer: Albert N. Other
Review Date: 25 January 2010
IETF LC End Date: 27 January 2010
Intended Status: Informational

Summary:
I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication.

Comments:
This document is clearly written and easy to understand. The requirements are numbered, which is helpful. I would have preferred to see more figures, but this is a matter of style.
This is the first PCE document I have reviewed, so I went back and read some of the previous RFCs. It may mean that my review is not sufficiently in-depth.

Major Issues:
No major issues found.

Minor Issues:
Section 2.1.10 : requirement R11
I found the term "reoptimization" confusing. It begs the question of whether the objective is to find an optimum path for the LSP or to place the LSP for the optimum use of the network. Indeed, "optimum" may, itself, be open to interpretation. Can you include some clarification of these terms, possibly by reference to other documents if they have already been defined in the PCE context.

Nits:
Section 2
s/seciton/section/


Back to the Routing Area wiki

Back to the Routing Area Directorate wiki

Last modified 3 years ago Last modified on Jul 3, 2017, 1:59:46 PM