Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-11

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Dan, thank you for your review. I have entered a Discuss ballot for this document based on my own review.

Lars


> On 2020-12-5, at 12:05, Dan Romascanu via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> 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-ippm-ioam-data-11
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> Review Date: 2020-12-05
> IETF LC End Date: 2020-12-08
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary:
> 
> This is a very useful and rather complex document that discusses the data
> fields and associated data types for IOAM that can be encapsulated into a
> variety of protocols. It's well written, detailed and accurate. It is READY
> from a Gen-ART perspective, with a few editorial comments that I suggest being
> addressed before approval or as part of the final editorial process.
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> 1. How are specific IOAM encapsulations being defined? Will specifications that
> define IOAM encapsulations into various protocols be within the scope of the
> IPPM WG? of the IETF? Do they require to be RFCs? Some clarification text would
> be useful.
> 
> 2. In Section 5.4.2.12 I found the following:
> 
>> The authors
>   acknowledge that in some operational cases there is a need for the
>   units to be consistent across a packet path through the network,
>   hence RECOMMEND the implementations to use standard units such as
>   Bytes.
> 
> 'The authors ... RECOMMEND' seems a little bit odd. The active verb form is not
> within the list of keywords as per [RFC2119], also mentioned in Section 3 of
> this document. To be on the safe side I would recommend reformulating the
> sentence so that the RECOMMENDED form is used. Alternatively, just do not use
> capitalization here.
> 
> 3. In Section 8.7 I found:
> 
>> The expert will post the request on the IPPM mailing list, and
>   possibly on other relevant mailing lists, to allow for community
>   feedback.
> 
> I assume that this means the IPPM WG mailing list. The abbreviation of IPPM may
> be very familiar for the current audiences, but the situation may change in the
> future. The scope even of this document may outlive the WG. I suggest to expand
> IPPM in Section 3 and possibly reformulate the sentence so that posting the
> request on the IPPM list does not sound as the eternal procedure.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> last-call mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call