Re: [Gen-art] [ippm] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-20

"MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com> Wed, 04 December 2019 17:50 UTC

Return-Path: <acm@research.att.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E716B120853; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 09:50:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, PDS_BTC_ID=0.499, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wgwECrN6PbRd; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 09:50:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6008120834; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 09:49:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049459.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049459.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id xB4HYxc9005425; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 12:49:50 -0500
Received: from tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (sbcsmtp3.sbc.com [144.160.112.28]) by m0049459.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2wpe7r5yhe-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 04 Dec 2019 12:49:50 -0500
Received: from enaf.dadc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id xB4Hnl8E031482; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 11:49:49 -0600
Received: from zlp30499.vci.att.com (zlp30499.vci.att.com [135.46.181.149]) by tlpd255.enaf.dadc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id xB4HnhBZ031328 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 4 Dec 2019 11:49:43 -0600
Received: from zlp30499.vci.att.com (zlp30499.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30499.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 7FDD7400579E; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 17:49:43 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (unknown [135.41.1.46]) by zlp30499.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 59B70400578B; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 17:49:43 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from sldc.sbc.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id xB4HnhSu019452; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 11:49:43 -0600
Received: from mail-azure.research.att.com (mail-azure.research.att.com [135.207.255.18]) by clpi183.sldc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id xB4HnX1D018499; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 11:49:33 -0600
Received: from exchange.research.att.com (njbdcas1.research.att.com [135.197.255.61]) by mail-azure.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BF17E24AE; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 12:48:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from njmtexg5.research.att.com ([fe80::b09c:ff13:4487:78b6]) by njbdcas1.research.att.com ([fe80::8c6b:4b77:618f:9a01%11]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Wed, 4 Dec 2019 12:49:33 -0500
From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acm@research.att.com>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, "Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com>
CC: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ippm] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-20
Thread-Index: AQHVjjJgXeYSPBPTtkuJ+V4uG/Gmf6d1PmYAgAE9RpCANDfXgP//xYuA
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 17:49:32 +0000
Message-ID: <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CFA6F05DBE@njmtexg5.research.att.com>
References: <157233748615.6543.10822415025321392095@ietfa.amsl.com> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CFA0B694BE@njmtexg5.research.att.com> <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD23D9EA85@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com> <0FFC4378-9B11-4641-9544-4F960DDC624E@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <0FFC4378-9B11-4641-9544-4F960DDC624E@cooperw.in>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [156.106.224.110]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.95,18.0.572 definitions=2019-12-04_03:2019-12-04,2019-12-04 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 clxscore=1011 bulkscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1910280000 definitions=main-1912040142
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/9uYBj86aEDisPjRzb4U27Qwt43Q>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [ippm] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-20
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 17:50:02 -0000

Hi Alyssa,

Although we originally chose Expert Review (at IANA's request),
it seems the best policy choice is Specification Required
(which includes Expert Review), and IANA agreed at IETF-106.
  
We are in the process of finding and updating any stray instances 
of the old policy left behind...

Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 11:15 AM
> To: Roni Even (A) <roni.even@huawei.com>;
> Cc: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acm@research.att.com>;; Roni Even
> <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>;; gen-art@ietf.org; last-call@ietf.org;
> ippm@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry.all@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [ippm] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-
> registry-20
> 
> Roni, thanks for your review. Al, thanks for your response. I entered a
> DISCUSS ballot to get the registration policy clarified.
> 
> Alissa
> 
> 
> > On Nov 1, 2019, at 11:54 AM, Roni Even (A) <roni.even@huawei.com>; wrote:
> >
> > Hi Al,
> > I saw that IANA was consulted during the work.
> > I was wondering what will be the actual text that will be written in the
> IANA registry, I expected section 10 to describe it.
> >
> > Registration Procedure(s)
> > Reference
> > Note
> >
> > I am not sure yet what is the Registration Procedure and what will be
> written in the Note
> >
> > Thanks
> > Roni
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of MORTON,
> ALFRED C (AL)
> > Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 11:52 PM
> > To: Roni Even; gen-art@ietf.org
> > Cc: last-call@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry.all@ietf.org;
> ippm@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-
> metric-registry-20
> >
> > Hi Roni,
> > thanks for your comments, please see replies below.
> > Al
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Roni Even via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@ietf.org]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 4:25 AM
> >> To: gen-art@ietf.org
> >> Cc: last-call@ietf.org; ippm@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ippm-metric-
> >> registry.all@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-20
> >>
> >> Reviewer: Roni Even
> >> Review result: Almost Ready
> >>
> >> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> >> 3A__trac.ietf.org_trac_gen_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=DwICaQ&c=LFYZ-
> >> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=mLefZkw5Y_ld2AFv2msgpzOV5
> >> Z7lZ JkKTdUQf48X15g&s=uUg9ktSDILsslqK-rG4YIc3gMW0n6oCa-7Dk0xtFZRo&e=>.
> >>
> >> Document: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-??
> >> Reviewer: Roni Even
> >> Review Date: 2019-10-29
> >> IETF LC End Date: 2019-11-06
> >> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> >>
> >> Summary:
> >> The document is almost ready for publication as a BCP document
> >>
> >> Major issues:
> >>
> >> Minor issues:
> >> 1. From reading the document it looks to me that the registration
> >> policy should be specification required which also requires expert
> review.
> > [acm]
> > I understand that perspective. In early review with IANA we decided on
> Expert Review partly because two elements of registry entries require
> references to immutable documents, such as standards specifications.
> > So the requirement for specifications could be seen as built-in.
> > But we may change to Specification Required now, the last IANA review is
> in-progress.
> >
> >> 2. My understanding is that for registration a document is required ,
> >> not necessarily and RFC, but in multiple places in the document ( 7.3,
> >> 7.3.1, 8.2 ,...) the text talks about RFC and not document.
> > [acm]
> > Yes, a few of those slipped through, thanks.
> >
> >> 3. I am not sure if section 6 is needed in the published document based
> on its content.
> > [acm]
> > it's fairly easy for new implementers to pick-up an IPPM RFC (even a
> STD) and choose parameters that meet their needs. But for the additional
> advantage of measurement comparisons, more context is needed. Some may
> even ask why this registry requires the many details. Answer: See section
> 6.
> > A little history is good. Very few have been joining IPPM sessions long
> enough to know this history.
> >
> >> If it will remain then in 6.1
> >> first paragraph the reference should be to section 5 and not to section
> 6.
> > [acm] ok
> >
> >> 4.
> >> In sections 10.2 and 10.3 there are guidance taken from this document.
> >> I think that the for IANA it should say in the registry note that the
> >> registration must comply with RFCXXX (this document), I assume that
> >> there is no need to repeat all this text in these sections in the
> registry note.
> > [acm]
> > I have said on a few occasions that almost the entire memo contains IANA
> Considerations. Nevertheless, we wrote and reviewed the memo and (then
> wrote) the separate IANA section with IANA's help.
> >
> > I have implemented the agreed changes above in the working version.
> > Thanks again!
> >
> >>
> >> Nits/editorial comments:
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gen-art mailing list
> > Gen-art@ietf.org
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_gen-2Dart&d=DwIFAg&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-
> 6zYMI&m=2q0aurIg38tkrrArxC6BhJGR8A6r9_B7X9X70h7rmHQ&s=BkWy-
> yUsZUaGgC7d2gETnsQFmV-csAXHbUCx9lPc5RA&e=
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ippm mailing list
> > ippm@ietf.org
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ippm&d=DwIFAg&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-
> 6zYMI&m=2q0aurIg38tkrrArxC6BhJGR8A6r9_B7X9X70h7rmHQ&s=jk9faC1UKfhHsvFGPWHn
> cO7MjzGlPGlIPOewNjeSY6s&e=