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

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 29 Jun 2017, at 2:28, [e-mail] wrote:

> 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.

Thanks for considering this. IMO, I don't see why doing this as PS would 
require removing anything; lots of PSs have informational content in 
them.

> 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).

Oh, I didn't mean to say that serious reviews of Informational docs 
didn't happen; it quite often does. But the bar is lower, and I know for 
myself (both as a participant and as an AD) that sometimes I would skip 
reading a particular document because I had run out of time and "it was 
only going for Informational", or see something that I didn't like in a 
Informational document and say, "Well, it's only going for 
Informational, so I'm not going to cause too much of a fuss". For a 
document that is actually a consensus specification of an IETF WG, that 
shouldn't be allowed to happen; everybody should be aware that this 
document should get the full scrutiny of a standards-track document.

> Regards,
>
> Ruediger

Cheers,

pr

> -----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.


-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]