[Anima] Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-07

[Francesca Palombini <[e-mail]>]

Reviewer: Francesca Palombini
Review result: Ready with Nits

Hi,

I am the assigned reviewer from the IoT directorate for this document. Please
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

Document: draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-07
Reviewer: Francesca Palombini
Review Date: 2017-12-13

Overall comment: I think this document is ready for publication as
informational, with some nits (mostly typos and editorial), listed below. Note
that I did not include nits that were already underlined by other reviewers (
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/SJGDKh34-J9gU8P7KJjEnryAUMM and
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/ouSMdOa3t_tq6xqYGDivdkyyZlQ)

* Abstract: "OAM (Operations, Administration and Maintenance - as per BCP161,
(RFC6291) processes for data networks are often subject" should be "OAM
(Operations, Administration and Maintenance - as per BCP161, [RFC6291]) for
data networks is often subject"

* Abstract: "This document describes how to integrate OAM processes with the
autonomic control plane (ACP)" should be "This document describes how to
integrate OAM processes with the Autonomic Control Plane (ACP)"

* Section 1.1 (suggestion): it would have been good to have a "Terminology"
section, that would expand on the most used terms, such as "autonomic", as well
as reference the list of documents listed in section 2.1, first paragraph.

* Section 2, second bullet: "The are" should be "There are"

* Section 2, third bullet: "autonomic network" should be "Autonomic Network
(AN)", as the abbreviation is used in section 2.1.6 too.

* Section 2.1.1 (question): "as defined in section 6.1 of
[I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane]" is this the right section referenced?
Could not see what is mentioned there.

* Section 2.1.1: "NMS hosts" NMS should be expanded (1st time used)

* Section 2.1.1: "spearate" should be "separate"

* Section 2.1.1 (suggestion): "NMS that performs SNMP read operations for
status checking," should be "performing SNMP read operations for status
checking by NMS,"

* Section 2.1.1: "for network devices as" should be "for network devices such
as"

* Section 2.1.2: "that is, operator cannot achieve desired goals with this
setup" should be "that is, operators cannot achieve desired goals with this
setup"

* Section 2.1.2: "candiate" should be "candidate"

* Section 2.1.3 (question): is "ACP connect section of
[I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane]" section 8.1 of
[I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane]? It would be good to have the
reference for easier reading.

* Section 2.1.3 (suggestion): please expand on the doc used before referencing
the RFC; for example: "That document also specifies how the NOC devices can
receive autoconfigured addressing and routes towards the ACP connect subnet if
it supports [RFC6724] and [RFC4191]" could be something like "That document
also specifies how the NOC devices can receive autoconfigured addressing and
routes towards the ACP connect subnet if it supports Default Address Selection
for IPv6 [RFC6724] and Default Router Preferences [RFC4191]"

* Section 2.1.3: "See the ACP document text for more details." a direct
reference would help the reader here.

* Section 2.1.4 (question): "Independent of whether the data plane is
dual-stack, has IPv4 as a service or is single stack IPv6." This sentence is
unclear to me, is it missing words maybe?

* Section 2.1.4: "IPv4 only management" should be "IPv4-only management" (2
occurences)

* Section 2.1.4 (question): "This means that stateless SIIT based solutions are
sufficient and preferred." If I understand correctly, SIIT is the only method
mentioned here that solves the requirements; in this case, using the term
preferred is maybe not necessary (since we are not comparing to others). If
that's correct, I suggest removing "and preferred".

* Section 2.1.4 (suggestion): again, please expand on the names of the RFC
before referencing them: RFC1918 and RFC7757

* Section 2.1.4: "Assume the ACP uses the Zone Addressing Sub-Scheme and there
are 3 registrars." missing a word?

* Section 2.1.4 (suggestion): "In the Zone Addressing Sub-Scheme, there is for
each registrar a constant /112 prefix for which in RFC7757 an EAM (Explicit
Address Mapping) into a /16 (eg: RFC1918) prefix into IPv4 can be configured."
is unclear. Does rephrasing to "In the Zone Addressing Sub-Scheme, for each
registrar there is a constant /112 prefix that can be configured through an EAM
(Explicit Address Mapping) into a /16 prefix in IPv4 (e.g. RFC1918)" keep the
original meaning?

* Section 2.1.4:  "it is unlikely that one wants or need to translate" should
be "it is unlikely that one wants or needs to translate"

* Section 2.1.4: "Eg: that IPv4 only NMS hosts" should be "E.g.: that IPv4-only
NMS hosts"

* Section 2.1.5: "but the data-plane connectivity is only present under normal
operations but will not be present during e.g.  early stages of device
bootstrap," should be "but the data-plane connectivity is only present under
normal operations and will not be present during e.g. early stages of device
bootstrap,"

* Section 2.1.5: "caries" should be "carries"

* Section 2.1.5: expand the first occurrence of "VRF"

* Section 2.1.6: expand the first occurrence of "AN"

* Section 2.1.8: "IPv4 only applications" should be "IPv4-only applications"

* Section 3.1: "IPv4 only NOC solutions" should be "IPv4-only NOC solutions"

* Section 4: "to voluntarily list your own the ULA ACP prefixes" should be "to
voluntarily list your own ULA ACP prefixes"

* Section 4: expand ULA on first use

Francesca