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

Lars Eggert <> Thu, 25 March 2021 12:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF1253A1FFF; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 05:33:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PaPqN1gyri9q; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 05:33:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:211:32ff:fe22:186f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3A613A1FFD; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 05:33:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:cd46:2bbf:5755:8854] (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ac00:4000:400:cd46:2bbf:5755:8854]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 25C58600027; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 14:33:19 +0200 (EET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=dkim; t=1616675599; bh=cHDLRLQlxv04pbNcfXb1yzpBcI1HuqqF7TM/LZS+VNQ=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=EUm/ZvXOzk31Uvb9isdzPqQHgq+XNte0p4dz+26ixCqSkBjrMLhQ3usPm+ps8uOcA tQzrZQB9N3JnEtC7sDEaG9ENxKlYmnRLczCutTIK5L62nu2/CCF9o5G6hiFNz6RTPC 91vtFt8G0oWE+41PvHGghpBXTSZiEQmOlBGGoVsM=
From: Lars Eggert <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F0CBD115-2BD6-4792-8048-E2495516D538"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 14:33:17 +0200
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: General Area Review Team <>, Last Call <>,,
To: Dan Romascanu <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
X-MailScanner-ID: 25C58600027.A36CE
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-11
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 12:33:38 -0000

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


> On 2020-12-5, at 12:05, Dan Romascanu via Datatracker <> 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
> <>.
> 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 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