Subject: Gen-ART LC/Telechat review of draft-bryant-mpls-tp-jwt-report-00

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 16:50:09 -0500

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-bryant-mpls-tp-jwt-report-00
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date:
IESG Telechat date: 09 Oct 2008

Summary:

(I was assigned this both as a LC review and a telechat review--with  
the telechat oddly happening before the end of the LC. Hopefully this  
review can serve both purposes.)

This draft may be ready to publish as an informational RFC, but there  
is an issue I'm not sure what to think of. See details below.

Major issues:

This draft does something I've never seen before, which is to  
explicitly call for two versions of the RFC: a PDF version that  
contains imbedded slides, and a text version which merely describes  
the slides. The one under review is the text version.

I understand the desire to do this, as this draft describes  
proceedings of an IETF/ITU-T joint effort, and each group has  
different standards of documentation. But I am not sure what to think  
of an RFC that is published in two different formats, with the content  
being substantially different between them.

I don't propose that this is a bad or or thing--merely something for  
the ADs to think about. It might work to have _both_ versions merely  
reference the slides as an external document, but that would have  
archival issues--which is I think the reason for this draft in the  
first place.

Nits/editorial comments:

Abstract, sentence 2:

The first part of the sentence (prior to the colon) does not parse. Is  
the word "of" a typo?

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf