Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-07

[Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>]

Pete,

Thank for your review. I will address the remaining comments on the draft.

> On Apr 16, 2018, at 9:01 AM, Pete Resnick <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Pete Resnick
> Review result: Ready with Issues
> 
> 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-twamp-yang-07
> Reviewer: Pete Resnick
> Review Date: 2018-04-16
> IETF LC End Date: 2018-04-27
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary:
> 
> This document appears ready to go forward. The only "issue" I have here might
> end up being an editorial issue, but I list it as a Minor issue because it
> might be substantive.
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> None.
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> In the paragraph after Figure 3, it says, "and subsequent values are
> monotonically increasing". I'm not sure I understand what that means. If 0 is
> the highest priority, then 1 is a *lower* priority than 0, not an increasing
> priority. If you are trying to say that the numeric value of the priority field
> is increasing by 1 for each subsequent value, then "monotonically increasing"
> is wrong; the sequence "0 2 5 36" is monotonically increasing. You'd say
> instead, "and subsequent values increase by one". If all you mean is that
> values start at 0 and go up from there, I think you should just delete the
> entire phrase; it doesn't add anything and strikes me as confusing.
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> Why are RFC 4086, RFC 8018, and ietf-ippm-metric-registry Informative
> References instead of Normative? The uses appear to be normative.

Ok. Will move them to Normative section.

> 
> I'm not clear why the examples were split between Section 6 and Appendix A;
> seems like you could just use the long one in section 6 and explain only the
> important bits. I also note that neither of them make any claims about
> normativity: That is, most examples in documents I see always say something
> like, "If there is a conflict between anything here and the syntax in the
> model, the model wins." Is that not the case in these sorts of model documents?

We decided to split the examples between Section 6 and Appendix A primarily because we wanted to focus on describing parts of the configuration in Section 6. We kept the examples smaller and added a description up front to describes them, so it was easy to follow them. They can also be incomplete, specially as it relates to mandatory nodes. 

The examples in the Appendix are more complete and can be used to test any implementation of the model. 

> 
> Pet peeve: Except in Acknowledgements, I really don't like the use of "we" in
> IETF documents (even though it's becoming more and more common). It's not clear
> to whom it refers (the WG? the authors? the IETF?). In most places, it can be
> replaced with "This document", or using passive voice (e.g., s/We define X as/X
> is defined as). There are only 4 occurrences: Abstract, 1.1, 3, and 3.1. Easy
> enough to change.

Ok. Will do.

Thanks.

> 
> Note to shepherd: In the shepherding writeup, question 1 is not answered
> correctly. This document is going for *Proposed* Standard, not *Internet*
> Standard. Further, there is no explanation for why this should be a standards
> track document (though I believe the answer is pretty straightforward). You
> should go correct that. While you're at it, you can update answer 15, as that
> nit was corrected.
> 
> 

Mahesh Jethanandani
[e-mail]