Re: [Int-area] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-intarea-probe-07

Joel, thanks for your review. Ron, thanks for engaging with Joel. I have entered a No Objection ballot. I gather the change will be reflected in the next rev.

Alissa

> On Nov 30, 2017, at 4:44 PM, Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review result: Almost 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 wait for direction from your
> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-intarea-probe-07
> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
> Review Date: 2017-11-30
> IETF LC End Date: 2017-12-13
> IESG Telechat date: 2017-12-14
> 
> Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard
> RFC.
> 
> Major issues:
>    I can not determine from the text why two identification objects are
>    sometimes allowed, or how they are to be used.  The texts seems to indicate
>    that they can be somehow combined to identify a single probed interface. 
>    But I can not see how.
> 
> Minor issues:
>    In section 2.1 in describing the usage when the probed interface is
>    identified by name or ifindex, the text refers to MIBII, RFC 2863.  I would
>    expect to see it refer instead (or at least preferentially) to RFC 7223,
>    the YANG model for the Interface stack.
> 
>    The E bit in the Extended ICMP Echo reply seems a bit odd.  Shall we try to
>    encode all the possible interface types in this field?  Shall we try to
>    distinguish Ethernet directly over fiber from Ethernet over ...?  What
>    about an emulated Ethernet interface (pseudowire, etc.)  I do not
>    understand why this is here, and fear it is ambiguous.
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
>    I find the description of the node containing the proxy interface as being
>    "the probed node" as being somewhat odd, as it is not the node containing
>    the probed interface.  I would have expected it to be called "the proxy
>    node"?
> 
>    Very nitpicky: In section 4, the step reading "If the Code Field is equal
>    to No Error (0) and the L-bit is clear, set the A-Bit." probably ought to
>    say "otherwise, clear the A-bit."
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> Int-area@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area