Re: [ippm] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-22: (with COMMENT)

["MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Éric,

Thanks for your review, please see replies below [acm],
Al


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 8:36 AM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-22:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-22: 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_iesg_statement_discuss-2Dcriteria.html&d=DwIDaQ&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=-
> EqEK9BLfYLCxQw5QIpvnCbgMRwglD07OW38FgE5f-
> 0&s=ZGkx_Z4dGD4YiLCxag2aeKb_D369tT_Xys6-nW9KSI4&e=
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dmetric-
> 2Dregistry_&d=DwIDaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=-
> EqEK9BLfYLCxQw5QIpvnCbgMRwglD07OW38FgE5f-
> 0&s=B_kk53Lojfac4VzaJgy87IkD4D31Ic8r8NRWpEXYHXo&e=
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you for the work put into this document. It is quite extensive (I
> even
> wonder whether it was useful to indicate the motivations for the
> registry).
> 
> There are a couple of COMMENTs below; feel free to ignore them but I would
> appreciate if you replied.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -éric
> 
> == COMMENTS ==
> 
> -- Section 5 --
> "interpretable by the user." who is the user in this case? (I have my
> guess of
> course but let's try to be clear)
> 
> Why specifying "implementable by the **software** designer," ? I.e., are HW
> designers out of scope ?
[acm] 
OK, added "or hardware"
> 
> "accurate" is also quite vague
[acm] 
OK, now reads
accurate in terms of producing equivalent results, 
and for interoperability and deployment across vendors

> 
> Also a couple of nits in the section about ',' or '.' and upper/lower case
> characters.
[acm] 
will seek and destroy

> 
> -- Section 6.1 --
> s/will/should/ in "Why this Attempt Will Succeed" ? ;-)
[acm] 
"should" it will be...

> 
> -- Section 7 --
> The table part below is quite unclear at first and second reading. Worth
> re-wording ? " Category
> ------------------
> Column |  Column |
> "
> Or perhaps use a tree form (à la YANG module tree) ?
[acm] 

How about making it clear that this is a Legend, à la

=======================================================================
Legend:
    Registry Categories and Columns are shown below as:
    Category
    ------------------...
    Column |  Column |...
=======================================================================


> 
> -- Section 7.1..2 --
> Probably worth mentioning "such as and not limited to" rather than "such
> as" ?
> 
> It is also unclear how the MetricType, Method, ... can be extended.
[acm] 
We specified that aspect in IANA Considerations section 10.2:

When preparing a Metric entry for Registration, the developer 
SHOULD choose Name elements from among the registered elements. 
However, if the proposed metric is unique in a significant way, 
it may be necessary to propose a new Name element to properly 
describe the metric, as described below.

> 
> -- Section 11.1.3. --
> Should the URL be an https:// one ?
> 
[acm] Thanks, that's the one I forgot to fix...

all initial-registry draft entries say:
https://www.iana.org/ ... <name>