I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at   Document:                         draft-ietf-cdni-requirements-12   Reviewer:                           Christer Holmberg   Review Date:                     18 November 2013   IETF LC End Date:             26 November 2013   IETF Telechat Date:         12 December 2013   Summary:  The document is well written, with one minor issue that the authors might want to address.   Major Issues: None   Minor Issues:   Q_GEN:   The document defines priority of each requirement as either [HIGH], [MED] or [LOW], which is fine. But, in addition to that, depending on the priority, the requirement text uses either “shall”, “should” or “may”.   Wouldn’t it be more clean to use consistent terminology (e.g. “shall”) in the actual requirement text, as the priority is anyway indicated separately?     Editorial nits: None