[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-04

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Mon, 07 May 2012 10:25 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF15821F85A3 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 May 2012 03:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.149
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.099, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 51lK539Ma5Zr for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 May 2012 03:25:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C82F221F858E for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 May 2012 03:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7b76ae0000063d8-3b-4fa7a31bc3c9
Authentication-Results: mailgw1.ericsson.se x-tls.subject="/CN=esessmw0247"; auth=fail (cipher=AES128-SHA)
Received: from esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain []) (using TLS with cipher AES128-SHA (AES128-SHA/128 bits)) (Client CN "esessmw0247", Issuer "esessmw0247" (not verified)) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 37.AB.25560.B13A7AF4; Mon, 7 May 2012 12:25:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se ([]) by esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se ([]) with mapi; Mon, 7 May 2012 12:25:24 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 12:25:22 +0200
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review of draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-04
Thread-Index: Ac0sOT0zWKIZyXd2SLuWg9ACQeaLng==
Message-ID: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852C4435E382@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A05852C4435E382ESESSCMS0356e_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: "'draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point.all@tools.ietf.org'" <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-04
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: Mon, 07 May 2012 10:25:34 -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-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-04
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 7 May 2012
IETF LC End Date: 21 March 2012
IESG Telechat date: 10 May 2012
Summary: The draft is ready for publication, with a couple of editorial nits.
Major issues: -
Minor issues: -
Nits/editorial comments:

(The comments also applied to the -03 version, and I apologize for not bringing them up when I reviewed that version.)
- General: G-ACh is mentioned throughout the document, but only in section 4 is there a reference to RFC 5586. I suggest to add a reference on first occurrence at least to section 1. It would probably be good also in section 3.

- Section 1: What is the purpose of the last paragraph, talking about IETF Experts not agreeing? For someone who has not followed the work, it seems as little strange.
- Section 3: The text says "The G-ACh Type assigned by this document". I guess it would be better to say e.g. "based on this document".