Subject: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-rsalz-2028bis-05

From: Vijay Gurbani via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 13:35:24 -0800

Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani
Review result: Ready with Issues

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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-rsalz-2028bis-05
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: 2022-02-18
IETF LC End Date: 2022-03-07
IESG Telechat date: 2022-03-10

Summary: Ready with one major issue and one nit.

Major issues: 1
- S3.7, first paragraph: I don't think it is accurate to characterize the 
 IETF as focusing on "shorter-term issues of engineering and standards
 making."  If the contrast is being made to the "longer-term research issues" 
 of IRTF, then the comparison is flawed.  Research can be short term and
 engineering decisions can have impact over the long term; it is not our
 place to characterize research as long term and engineering as short term.
 Who arbitrates what constitutes long term and short term?  Can a short-term 
 engineering idea in the IETF have as much impact as a long running IRTF 
 group?  I suspect the answer is yes.  For these reasons, I am not sure we 
 should consider ourselves to be an arbiter of these things.  

 I believe that first paragraph will read just as well if both the qualifiers
 "longer-term" and "shorter-term" were taken out, and I would make a case
 that we should do so.

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:
- S3.5: Does "RFC Advisory Board (RSAB)" expand to "RFC Series Advisory Board"?
 The "Series" is missing; in the previous line RSWG expands to "RFC Series
 Working Group", so I expect a symmetry.