Given the ambiguity, the best approach is to provide a general structure for reviewing such a document, highlighting common aspects people look for in technical standards. The review should mention clarity of scope, specifications, compliance requirements, industry acceptance, and perhaps usability of the PDF. Also, note any potential issues like outdated information if the document is old or errors in technical data.
Looking at the query again, perhaps the user meant "ASTM A100-17" or another standard. Alternatively, "D100-17" could refer to a document from a different organization. Since the user mentioned "steel," maybe it's a welding standard? For example, ASTM E17 could be a standard, but that doesn't align. Wait, maybe the user is referring to the AISI (American Iron and Steel Institute) standard, but AISI typically deals with cold-formed steel structures, not technical specifications for steel grades.
Since the user might be looking for a review but the specific document isn't known, the review should be hypothetical, based on general knowledge of similar standards. Emphasize the importance of cross-referencing with the latest editions and consulting with professionals if applying the standard in practice.