Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-06

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Pete,

thanks for proposing to make this an Applicability Statement, BCP or standard.

I don't object, but if the status of this draft is supposed to be changed, my chairs and AD need to support this. Bruno and Alvaro, what's your view on Pete's proposal? We may have to invest some more time and text then. I personally don't object to "informational" as an aim, but if that means removing major parts of the content, I'd be rather unhappy.

Pete, also Alvaro gave us a routing AD review on Friday, 16. June (and he had comments). Bruno's shephard review as part of the WG Last Call resulted in better structuring and definitions in the document. So far, no AD or reviewer "tends to ignore [this] Informational "use case" document". You’re the third AD to comment and ask for changes (and I recall to have had serious AD and IESG reviews with other informationals).

Regards,

Ruediger


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Pete Resnick [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. Juni 2017 20:31
An: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Betreff: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-06

Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: Not 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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-06
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2017-06-28
IETF LC End Date: 2017-06-30
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Not Ready for publication as Informational, but might be Ready for publication as Proposed Standard

Major issues:

This is an admittedly unusual review. I have read through the entire document, and the technical work seems fine, but is well beyond my technical expertise, so I can't really comment on the technical correctness. However, it is absolutely clear to me that this is *not* a "use case" document at all and I don't think it's appropriate as an Informational document. This is clearly a
*specification* of a path monitoring system. It gives guidances as to required, recommended, and optional parameters, and specifies how to use different protocol pieces. It is at the very least what RFC 2026 refers to as an "Applicability Statement (AS)" (see RFC 2026, sec. 3.2). It *might* be a BCP, but it is not strictly giving "common guidelines for policies and operations"
(2026, sec. 5), so I don't really think that's right, and instead this should be offered for Proposed Standard. Either way, I think Informational is not correct. Importantly, I think there is a good likelihood that this document has not received the appropriate amount of review; people tend to ignore Informational "use case" documents, and there have been no Last Call comments beyond Joel's RTG Area Review. Even in IESG review, an Informational document only takes the sponsoring AD to approve; every other AD can summarily ignore the document, or even ballot ABSTAIN, and the document will still be published (though that does not normally happen). This document should have much more than that level of review. I strongly recommend to the WG and AD that this document be withdrawn as an Informational document and resubmitted for Proposed Standard and have that level of review and scrutiny applied to it.

Minor issues:

None.

Nits/editorial comments:

This document refers to RFC 4379, which has been obsoleted by RFC 8029. It seems like the references should be updated.