Hi Lars,
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
Misspellings and formatting nits should be fixed in there.
Regarding your side note – we received similar comments from Med (cc’ed), and addressed them in rev -11.
Here are two specific references:
[MB24] Reference to why bisection method in RFC 2544 is excessively slow.
https://gerrit.fd.io/r/c/csit/+/43155/10/docs/ietf/draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch-10.md#489
[MB26] Reminder of the RFC 2544 search basics.
https://gerrit.fd.io/r/c/csit/+/43155/10/docs/ietf/draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch-10.md#519
Many thanks again for your review – appreciate!
Regards,
Maciek and Vratko (authors)
From: Lars Eggert via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, 8 August 2025 at 11:20
To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx <gen-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 Genart review
Document: draft-ietf-bmwg-mlrsearch
Title: Multiple Loss Ratio Search
Reviewer: Lars Eggert
Review result: Ready with Nits
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-bmwg-mlrsearch-??
Reviewer: Lars Eggert
Review Date: 2025-08-08
IETF LC End Date: 2025-08-06
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
Summary:
This is ready to go with no issues that I can see.
(A side note is that my re-reading of RFC 2544 doesn't leave me with the
definitive algorithm that this I-D ascribes to that RFC. The relevant parts of
RFC 2544 are extremely high-level, to the point of claiming it to specifying
anything like a search algorithm is IMO a stretch. It might be that the
benchmarking community has a shared set of assumptions around RFC 2544 that
come into play here. Are those written down anywhere? Would be good to cite.)
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
Has a bunch of misspellings and formatting nits that the RPC can fix.
