Hi Yoshi,
Thank you for your review!
FYI We applied changes from all reviews in gerrit of LFN FD.io CSIT
open-source project.
Here the main link to the patchset with to .md, .txt and .xml files:
43590: fix(ietf): MLRsearch draft 12 for nits | https://gerrit.fd.io/r/c/csit/+/43590
Regarding the point you raised:
> - RFC2119 terms in 'Discussion' paragraphs
We believe that the text in the last paragraph of section 3 is sufficient for this document.
Broader discussion on the BMWG mailer (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/jQwSP0oVe51b7y--yBLL4zQLw7Y/)
could result in more specific rules, but those are not known yet.
Many thanks again for your review – appreciate!
Regards,
Maciek and Vratko (authors)
From: Yoshifumi Nishida via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, 4 August 2025 at 07:14
To: tsv-art@xxxxxxxx <tsv-art@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: bmwg@xxxxxxxx <bmwg@xxxxxxxx>, draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch.all@xxxxxxxx <draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch.all@xxxxxxxx>, last-call@xxxxxxxx <last-call@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch-11 ietf last call Tsvart review
Document: draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch
Title: Multiple Loss Ratio Search
Reviewer: Yoshifumi Nishida
Review result: Ready with Nits
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.
When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@xxxxxxxx if you reply to or forward this review.
I believe this document is well-written and almost ready for publication
as an informational RFC.
I think this document doesn't have transport related issues as the methodology
described in the document is designed to be protocol-agnostic and doesn't specify
any transport protocol specific requirements or conditions.
One minor point I've noticed is how we should follow the 'Discussion' paragraphs
in Section 4.While the paragraphs contain RFC2119 terms, I am not very sure
if we should really follow the requirements as I have some impressions
there might be some rooms for discussions.
I think it would be better to clarify how the readers should follow the
requirements in them.
Thanks,
--
Yoshi
