[Gen-art] gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def-09
Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com> Tue, 12 April 2011 19:43 UTC
Return-Path: <scott.brim@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0639E0870 for <gen-art@ietfc.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:43:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.800, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1KGeFkeY+x07 for <gen-art@ietfc.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:43:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D64EBE0879 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn39 with SMTP id 39so8634048iwn.31 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=LQFiJvpmC9f61zrX2qBbxAFPpygIa6pcMgNFcvVnX/U=; b=wgoudCZmblOOdRkOsA/zfJdvTHEBYwYcuwaxeRCOpptsSISJ2XglmP5/slSTwUPwO5 9goLFBFZtKTkvSMw0I/0jBorBS/IMofcKsvx7HHP96PIAr5PSLKlNxX700W8wUbCypPB gw+PATdu9vd4Zf6pplgv6c+PJE+CXxYu8usXg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=w78G855n2c0+/FHgSITGOpcQ5J4+E4snAyjrp9fGbZT+p0Zp8FSK6IILWrjUMouRDw +0mgWOcIyEfcOrGU+kj223xBBpAGmUwNRfgvYMvILEPnwxt3zib98iDC8gnvbXT/xpbb 4EGY5mcmxLOpVNb5G84YILKT4Wff5OGuqwM5I=
Received: by 10.42.158.194 with SMTP id i2mr10955082icx.8.1302637405100; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.16.140 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:43:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:43:05 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTinir3f3JZBRJMOr-Zm7J_n0PCbKTQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: gen-art <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def.all@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Subject: [Gen-art] gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def-09
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:43:26 -0000
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def-09 Reviewer: Scott Brim Review Date: 12 April 2011 IETF LC End Date: 20 April 2011 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: Not ready for publication as a BCP Major issues: The goal is good, but imho the draft is poorly organized, with the result that it does not achieve its purpose well. - Give Section 2 a more informative title -- the content appears to be a section on how O, A and M are used in other SDOs, by way of introduction, but the title does not say so. - In Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, no IETF recommendations or disambiguation are included. That's find. However, Section 2.2.3 makes recommendations. The decision to use M to mean "maintenance", and what "maintenance" actually means should be moved to Section 3 (titled "Recommendations" in fact). Having a recommendation mixed in with a survey of other usage is confusing to the reader. - There should be another section after Section 4, a follow-up to Section 2, a discussion section to show how the IETF usage differs from that in other SDOs. Otherwise, what's the point of Section 2? It sets the stage by showing the problem ... but then all that scenery is abandoned. - One of the justifications for the recommendation is that OAM including maintenance is "horizontal" (on-path) while management is "vertical" (element - element mgr). That's a good distinction. However, the "administration" as defined in Section 3 is "vertical". Perhaps based on the draft's own justification, OAM should _not_ include "administration" and just be defined as "operations and maintanence"! ... but we don't want that outcome, so I suggest reworking the justification to avoid logical inconsistency. Thanks ... Scott