[Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-dots-robust-blocks-05

[Tim Evens via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Reviewer: Tim Evens
Review result: Ready with Nits

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-dots-robust-blocks-??
Reviewer: Tim Evens
Review Date: 2022-09-26
IETF LC End Date: 2022-09-16
IESG Telechat date: 2022-10-06

Summary: This document is ready with some minor comments.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Nits/editorial comments:

1) +1 to Paul's Nits

2) Upon initial read, the abstract could suggest new parameters being
introduced for configuration, yet that is not the case for this document. In
Section 1 it is more clear by writing "This document augments the
"ietf-dots-signal-channel" DOTS signal YANG module defined in Section 5.3 of
[RFC9132]". It appears to me that this document adds the existing RFC9177
non-confirming parameters to DOTS. I'm not suggesting that the abstract needs
to be changed, but IMO it is a bit misleading till you read the intro.

3) In section 1; "Nevertheless, the parameters listed in Table 1 are not
supported in [RFC9132]". While "not supported" is correct, I believe that it
would be more clear as "not included" considering the parameters do exist.

4) In section 3, the parameters are restated from RFC9177 and RFC9132.

Each parameter looks to be a redefinition of what's documented in RFC9177 but
with missing statements, truncated. I would prefer that if the parameter is
unchanged to RFC9177, it should simply state that it's the same as defined in
RFC9177.

Restating/documenting the parameters leads the reader to have to compare if
there is a change from the source RFC.