Re: [ippm] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-07: (with COMMENT)

[[e-mail]]

Hi Lars,






Thank you for the review and thoughtful comments.


Please check inline the proposed changes that will be incorporated into the next revision.





Best Regards,


Xiao Min







Original



From: LarsEggertviaDatatracker <[e-mail]>
To: The IESG <[e-mail]>;
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
Date: 2022年10月26日 16:53
Subject: Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-07: (with COMMENT)


Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-07: No Objection
 
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-ioam-conf-state/
 
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-conf-state-07
 
CC @larseggert
 
Thanks to Gyan S. Mishra for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/wA_8u8-xjQ7sl29P3Qul3W_U_aw)
 
## Comments
 
### Section 5.1, paragraph 3
```
     0b01 - 0b11 are available for assignment via RFC Required process as
     per [RFC8126].
```
Since there are only three codepoints remaining, would a stricter assignment
policy not make sense?

[XM]>>> Yes, a stricter assignment policy make sense to me. Propose to change it as below.

NEW

     0b01 - 0b11 are available for assignment via IETF Review process as     per [RFC8126].


### Section 5.2, paragraph 3
```
     0b11 is available for assignment via RFC Required process as per
     [RFC8126].
```
Since there is only a single codepoint remaining, would a stricter assignment
policy not make sense?


[XM]>>> Yes, a stricter assignment policy make sense to me. Propose to change it as below.


NEW


     0b11 is available for assignment via IETF Review process as per     [RFC8126].


## 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.

[XM]>>> Understood. Will take care of them, thanks.


### Typos
 
#### Section 3.1, paragraph 4
```
-    begining of the list of IOAM Namespace-IDs.  The IOAM encapsulating
+    beginning of the list of IOAM Namespace-IDs.  The IOAM encapsulating
+        +
```
 
#### Section 6, paragraph 9
```
-    Except for what's described above, the securiy issues discussed in
+    Except for what's described above, the security issues discussed in
+                                                 +
```
 
### Grammar/style
 
#### Section 3.2.2, paragraph 9
```
C9197]. This document defines SoP as follow: 0b00 means 64-bit "PktID" and 6
                                  ^^^^^^^^^
```
Did you mean "as follows"?
 
#### Section 3.2.6, paragraph 1
```
th TTL equal to 2 to reach the second nearest node, which also may be an IOAM
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
It appears that a hyphen is missing.
 
#### Section 4, paragraph 1
```
s per [RFC8126]. The subsequent sub-sections detail the registries herein co
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
This word is normally spelled as one.
 
## 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