[ippm] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-09: (with COMMENT)

[Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-09: 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-ipv6-options/



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

# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-09

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Joel Halpern for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/N0aMpTOtDieVf0vT6Tu2reLFewI)

## Comments

I find myself agreeing with the numerous DISCUSS positions, but
I trust the ADs that raised them to resolve them with the authors.

### Section 4, paragraph 28
```
     All the in-situ OAM IPv6 options defined here have alignment
     requirements.  Specifically, they all require 4n alignment.  This
```
I haven't come across the term "4n alignment" before. Suggest to
rephrase (by using the text in the following sentence.)

## 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 5.1, paragraph 4
```
-    C3  Packets with IOAM data or associated ICMP errors, should not
-                                                        -
```

### Outdated references

Document references `draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export`, but that has been
published as `RFC9326`.

### URLs

These URLs point to tools.ietf.org, which has been taken out of service:

 * https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kitamura-ipv6-record-route-00.txt

These URLs in the document can probably be converted to HTTPS:

 * http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters.xhtml#ipv6-parameters-2

### Grammar/style

#### Section 5.1, paragraph 3
```
IOAM. For example, if IOAM is used in in transit devices, misleading ICMP er
                                   ^^^^^
```
Possible typo: you repeated a word.

#### Section 5.1, paragraph 3
```
ommunicate the errors to devices outside of the IOAM domain MUST remove any
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^
```
This phrase is redundant. Consider using "outside".

#### Section 5.1, paragraph 5
```
 options that follow IOAM options. Hence when the IOAM Incremental Trace Opt
                                   ^^^^^
```
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Hence".

#### Section 5.4.1, paragraph 1
```
LA destination address is invalid outside of the IOAM domain. There is no ext
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^
```
This phrase is redundant. Consider using "outside".

## 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