Re: [ippm] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-05: (with COMMENT)

[Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lars,

Thanks very much for your detailed review and your comments.
Please see in line.

Cheers,
Tianran

-----Original Message-----
From: Lars Eggert via Datatracker [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 7:38 PM
To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-05: (with COMMENT)

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-05: 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-stamp-on-lag/



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

# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-05

CC @larseggert

## Comments

### Section 3.2, paragraph 2
```
     The micro STAMP Session-Sender MUST send the micro STAMP-Test packets
     over the member link with which the session is associated.  The
     configuration and management of the mapping between a micro STAMP
     session and the Sender/Reflector member link identifiers are outside
     the scope of this document.
```
This is a pretty critical piece to the process though. At the very
least, I would have expected to see some text requiring at least one
session needing to be established per member link to utilize the LAG
fully. Are there other such considerations?

ZTR> Yes. We would like to add the following text:
" The mapping between a micro STAMP session and the Sender/Reflector member link identifiers can be configured by augmenting the STAMP YANG [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang]. The detailed augmentation is not in the scope of this document."

### Boilerplate

This document uses the RFC2119 keywords "SHALL", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD NOT", "MUST", "RECOMMENDED", "OPTIONAL", "MAY", "SHOULD",
"REQUIRED", and "MUST NOT", but does not contain the recommended RFC8174
boilerplate. (It contains some text with a similar beginning.)

ZTR> Thanks. I will use the text from RFC8174.

## 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.

### Typos

#### Section 2, paragraph 4
```
-    in fact STAMP sessions estabilished on member links of a LAG, test
-                                -
```

#### Section 3, paragraph 1
```
-    Micro-session ID TLV introdued in this section for validation check.
+    Micro-session ID TLV introduced in this section for validation check.
+                                +
```

#### Section 3, paragraph 1
```
-    reveived from the expected member link.  It can also verify whether
-      ^
+    received from the expected member link.  It can also verify whether
+      ^
```

#### Section 6, paragraph 1
```
-    are directly connnected.  As such, it's assumed that a node involved
-                   -
```

### Grammar/style

#### Section 1, paragraph 1
```
rics of each member link of a LAG. Hence the measured performance metrics ca
                                   ^^^^^
```
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Hence".

#### Section 3.2, paragraph 6
```
ket, the micro Session-Sender uses the the Sender Micro-session ID to check w
                                   ^^^^^^^
```
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

ZTR> Thank you very much. All the typos are revised.

## 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