Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-12

["MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joel,
Thanks for your review, please see replies below.
Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel Halpern via Datatracker [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, November 1, 2019 12:55 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-12
> 
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review result: 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=GTgiUHp01_savOvQS49iOt8XRHfRw
> hPgZj-TNotgKGk&s=M0ib3zYg2qffmRujLJv2h_WHQ16W9fOYat9hNtBqcFk&e=>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-12
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review Date: 2019-11-01
> IETF LC End Date: 2019-11-06
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard
> 
> Side note: I presume that as part of the process for
> draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry (the normative reference the defines the
> structure used in this document) there has been discussion with IANA explicitly
> about the fact that this registry has an extremely large number of
> columns, some with extremely verbose content, and it will likely take some work for
> IANA to determine how to present this in a human-readable fashion?  And the
> lesser point that is probably covered by existing procedures, but I wanted to
> check, that IANA is prepared to fill in the URLs scattered throughout the
> document?
[acm] 
Yes and Yes. We prepared a mock-up of the new Registry at various stages
of development. Humbly, it was my idea to make the registry entries both
readable and useful. The IANA reps suggested the mock-up early-on, and we have
shared the different versions with the IPPM WG.  We/IANA plan to make the 
mock-up more widely available (but we failed to do that in time for Last Call).
> 
> Second note:  I did not review the accuracy of the descriptions of the metrics,
> but only looked for clarity.  This is material well known to the WG, and mostly
> derived from other documents this or closely related working groups have
> produced.
> 
> Major issues: N/A
> 
> Minor issues:
>     For those entries that are defining two (or more) closely related metrics,
>     should the document actually have two (or more) lines for URL, since the
>     text says that IANA is to assign two URLs.  (And the list of differing
>     fields should presumably include URL?)
[acm] 
There are sections of the document that define more than one registry entry,
so yes, there will be >1 URLs, etc. in the corresponding rows.
> 
>     In the first part of section 5, there is a note about potentially splitting
>     the registry entry into two registry entries.  I can not understand the
>     note.  The registry is either defined with one entry or defined with two
>     entries.  Is this still an open item?  (If so, my "ready" above clearly
>     should be "Ready with issues.")  I think it is just an erroneous retention
>     of text from earlier?
[acm] 
Exactly, it is a note left-stranded by editing later in the section,
thanks for catching it - deleted in the working version.

> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
>     If there are no roles to define in 5.3.6, shouldn't it say "N/A"
[acm] 
Actually, it should define the Roles (Src and Dst) as with other Metrics.
Something went wrong with formatting here - the text below the 
section header disappeared... thanks for catching that!

>     Some comments and remarks say "None" which makes sense.  Some say
>     "Additional (Informational) details for this entry" which seems to be 
>     text left over from the template that should say "None"?
[acm] 
Right,  found and replaced in working copy.

>