Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-11
review-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-11-genart-lc-halpern-2024-05-02-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 18)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2024-05-10
Requested 2024-04-26
Authors Mohamed Boucadair , Benoît Claise
I-D last updated 2024-05-02
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -11 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -11 by Tero Kivinen (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -11 by Wesley Eddy (diff)
Intdir Last Call review of -11 by Dirk Von Hugo (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -15 by Tero Kivinen (diff)
Tsvart Early review of -05 by Wesley Eddy (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -05 by Yingzhen Qu (diff)
Intdir Early review of -05 by Dirk Von Hugo (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joel M. Halpern
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/thtwknEK8VmcLg5tq4pGxXaGm-M
Reviewed revision 11 (document currently at 18)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2024-05-02
review-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-11-genart-lc-halpern-2024-05-02-00
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-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-11
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2024-05-02
IETF LC End Date: 2024-05-10
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC

Major issues: None

Minor issues:
    The document uses the phrasing "If several extension header chains are
    observed in a Flow" in several places.  While I believe I figured out what
    was intended, it caused me difficulty.  Assuming I understood the intent, I
    would suggest defining a term "flow with varying header chain" as "a flow
    wherein different packets in the flow have a different sequence of
    extension header types codes."  And then use that term in the suitable
    places in the document.

Nits/editorial comments: None