[ippm] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Lars Eggert via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Fri, 04 August 2023 10:27 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C75EC1522AB; Fri, 4 Aug 2023 03:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Lars Eggert via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm@ietf.org, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, tpauly@apple.com, tpauly@apple.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 11.5.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-ID: <169114486923.39761.12387445086900702399@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2023 03:27:49 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/6WZXx_btvef7vSAWIRT3agnNCJY>
Subject: [ippm] Lars Eggert's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2023 10:27:49 -0000

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm-17: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-srpm-17

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Joel Halpern for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/crZp5rrOYaDNMcoM95b5pFQBReo).

## Discuss

Two issues that I think will be quick to fix:

### Section 4, paragraph 12
```
     other Return Path TLVs if present.  A Session-Reflector that supports
     this TLV MUST reply using the Return Path received in the Session-
     Sender test packet, if possible.
```
"MUST ... if possible" is an odd construction. Please rephrase and
 clarify the requirements level.

### Section 4.1.3, paragraph 16
```
     The SRv6 Segment List contains a list of 128-bit IPv6 addresses
     representing the SRv6 SIDs.  Length of the Sub-TLV modulo MUST be 0.
```
Modulo *what*?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Outdated references

Document references `draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-01`, but `-03` is the latest
available revision.

### Grammar/style

#### Section 3, paragraph 4
```
s field in octets. The length is 4 octet for IPv4 address and 16 octet for I
                                   ^^^^^
```
Possible agreement error. The noun "octet" seems to be countable.

#### Section 3, paragraph 4
```
 is 4 octet for IPv4 address and 16 octet for IPv6 address. The Destination
                                    ^^^^^
```
Possible agreement error. The noun "octet" seems to be countable.

#### Section 4.1, paragraph 4
```
bit): Reply Request Flag at bit 31 (least significant bit) is defined as fol
                                    ^^^^^
```
A determiner may be missing.

#### Section 4.1.2, paragraph 3
```
s field in octets. The length is 4 octet for IPv4 address and 16 octet for I
                                   ^^^^^
```
Possible agreement error. The noun "octet" seems to be countable.

#### Section 4.1.2, paragraph 3
```
h is 4 octet for IPv4 address and 16 octet for IPv6 address. 4.1.3. Return Se
                                     ^^^^^
```
Possible agreement error. The noun "octet" seems to be countable.

#### Section 4.1.3, paragraph 14
```
re two possible combinations for such a interoperability use case: - STAMP S
                                      ^
```
Use "an" instead of "a" if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g.
"an article", "an hour".

#### Section 6, paragraph 4
```
e allocated according to the "First Come First Served" procedure as specifie
                                    ^^^^
```
It seems that a comma is missing. (Also elsewhere.)

#### Section 8.1, paragraph 3
```
 flow-label, etc. from the packet. Hence for IPv4, for example, different va
                                   ^^^^^
```
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Hence".

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool