Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8321bis-02

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

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

Lars


> On 2022-6-24, at 13:02, Elwyn Davies via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> 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-rfc8321bis-02
> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> Review Date: 2022-06-24
> IETF LC End Date: 2022-06-21
> IESG Telechat date: 2022-07-14
> 
> Summary:
> Ready with a number of nits.  I found that the discussion of possible uses
> besides the core proposal to be somewhat distracting and perhaps detracts from
> the value of the basic proposal.
> 
> Major issues:
> None.
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> Abstract: s/It could be considered/According to the classification defined in
> RFC 7799, it could be considered/
> 
> s1.1, para 1:s/overtaking./building on/; s/in the original/that was based on
> the original/
> 
> s1.1, last para:  Delete.  The change log wil not be in the final document.
> 
> s2, para 3: s/will have the same color/will have the same notional "color"/
> 
> s3.1, para 6: s/shows how a flow looks like when it is split in traffic
> blocks/shows how a flow appears when it is split into traffic blocks/
> 
> s3.1, second set of bullets:
> The problem is easier to solve for multicast traffic, where load-balancing is
> seldom used and static joins are frequently used to force traffic forwarding
> and replication.
> 
> Is the term 'static joins' sufficiently well-known to not need a reference?
> 
> s3.2.2, para1: s/statistic distribution/statistical distribution/
> 
> s3.2.2, para2:  The term 'security time gap'  didn't seem obvious in this
> section: Between packets with the second marking, there should be a security
> time gap to avoid out-of-order issues and also to have a number of measurement
> packets that are rate independent.
> 
> I suggest 'adequate time gap'.
> 
> s4.1, para2: s/ number of involved nodes/number of nodes involved/
> 
> s7, last para:  This paragraph is not future proof.  The two drafts referenced
> are not working group drafts and it is not clear if they will eventually become
> RFCs.   I would be inclined to omit the paragraph or at least reduce it to just
> refer to the IEEE work.  It could also be moved to an appendix.
> 
> s8, para 2: Not an academic paper!  s/We used/The mechanisms described in this
> document use/
> 
> s8, bullet 5: s/strictly related each other/strictly related to each other/
> 
> s8, bullet 7: Suggest replacing text with:
> Verification: the methodology  has been tested and deployed experimentally in
> both lab and operational network scenarios performing packet loss and delay
> measurements on traffic patterns created by traffic generators together with
> precision test instruents and network emiulators.
> 
> s8, bullet 11:  Singleton whats????
> 
> s8, bullet 12:  "currently, the main parameter of the method is...."   Once
> this becomes an RFC the parameters are set in stone - 'currently' is not a good
> way of describing that state. Also the bullet asks about 'parameters'.  If
> there is just one parameter say that.  If there are others they need to be
> described here.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> last-call mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call