Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-08

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

Since this issue has already been considered by the wg I'm fine if you 
leave things as they are.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 6/14/22 2:26 AM, Tal Mizrahi wrote:
> Dear Paul,
> 
> Many thanks for the comments.
> 
> Please see my response below, marked [TM].
> 
> Cheers,
> Tal.
> 
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 9:01 PM Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> 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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>
>> Document: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-08
>> Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
>> Review Date: 2022-06-??
>> IETF LC End Date: 2022-06-14
>> IESG Telechat date: ?
>>
>> Summary:
>>
>> This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should
>> be fixed before publication.
>>
>> Issues:
>>
>> Major: 0
>> Minor: 0
>> Nits:  2
>>
>> 1) NIT: Doc name inconsistent with scope
>>
>> The name & title of this draft isn't very indicative of the content of
>> the document. This document doesn't just define the *flag* for loopback;
>> it also defines the entire loopback *mechanism*, which is a much bigger
>> deal.
>>
>> It appears to me that the primary function of the document is to define
>> the loopback mechanism, with the definition of the flag being necessary
>> but secondary.
>>
>> This could be fixed by simply changing the name and title of the
>> document. (Or at least the title since the name will disappear in the
>> resulting rfc.)
>>
>> Or the specification of the loopback *mechanism* could be moved to a
>> different document and this document reduced to simply defining the flags.
>>
> 
> [TM] There is a delicate history here. Originally, the loopback and
> active functionality were part of RFC 9197 (before it was published as
> an RFC). At some point the working group commented that flag
> definition should be separated from the data field definition (RFC
> 9197). Here is the discussion about this in IETF 104, and specifically
> notice the text "regarding the editorials,  the draft specify out of
> scope context, shouldn’t specify protocol behavior.  Will be discussed
> in side meetings ... repeated for the active flag":
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/minutes-104-ippm-00
> 
> It was then further discussed in the following side meeting, and the
> decision was to have a separate draft that defines the loopback and
> active flag:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/XwOLqE-SLYoHL_x613BNgX2RORI/
> 
> I would suggest to stay with the current document title, since any
> change can potentially restart this delicate discussion again.
> 
> 
>> 2) NIT: Outdated reference
>>
>> IdNits reports:
>>    == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data has been published as
>>       RFC 9197
> 
> [TM] Agreed. Will be fixed.