Re: [ippm] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-12

[Joel Halpern Direct <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Al.  I presumed all the ducks were in a row, but thought I should 
ask to be certain.

Yours,
Joel

On 11/3/2019 3:14 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) wrote:
> Hi Joel,
> Thanks for your review, please see replies below.
> Al
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joel Halpern via Datatracker [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Friday, November 1, 2019 12:55 PM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]
>> Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-12
>>
>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>> Review result: Ready
>>
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
>> like any other last call comments.
>>
>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>>
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
>> 3A__trac.ietf.org_trac_gen_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=DwICaQ&c=LFYZ-
>> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=GTgiUHp01_savOvQS49iOt8XRHfRw
>> hPgZj-TNotgKGk&s=M0ib3zYg2qffmRujLJv2h_WHQ16W9fOYat9hNtBqcFk&e=>.
>>
>> Document: draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-12
>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>> Review Date: 2019-11-01
>> IETF LC End Date: 2019-11-06
>> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>>
>> Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard
>>
>> Side note: I presume that as part of the process for
>> draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry (the normative reference the defines the
>> structure used in this document) there has been discussion with IANA explicitly
>> about the fact that this registry has an extremely large number of
>> columns, some with extremely verbose content, and it will likely take some work for
>> IANA to determine how to present this in a human-readable fashion?  And the
>> lesser point that is probably covered by existing procedures, but I wanted to
>> check, that IANA is prepared to fill in the URLs scattered throughout the
>> document?
> [acm]
> Yes and Yes. We prepared a mock-up of the new Registry at various stages
> of development. Humbly, it was my idea to make the registry entries both
> readable and useful. The IANA reps suggested the mock-up early-on, and we have
> shared the different versions with the IPPM WG.  We/IANA plan to make the
> mock-up more widely available (but we failed to do that in time for Last Call).
>>
>> Second note:  I did not review the accuracy of the descriptions of the metrics,
>> but only looked for clarity.  This is material well known to the WG, and mostly
>> derived from other documents this or closely related working groups have
>> produced.
>>
>> Major issues: N/A
>>
>> Minor issues:
>>      For those entries that are defining two (or more) closely related metrics,
>>      should the document actually have two (or more) lines for URL, since the
>>      text says that IANA is to assign two URLs.  (And the list of differing
>>      fields should presumably include URL?)
> [acm]
> There are sections of the document that define more than one registry entry,
> so yes, there will be >1 URLs, etc. in the corresponding rows.
>>
>>      In the first part of section 5, there is a note about potentially splitting
>>      the registry entry into two registry entries.  I can not understand the
>>      note.  The registry is either defined with one entry or defined with two
>>      entries.  Is this still an open item?  (If so, my "ready" above clearly
>>      should be "Ready with issues.")  I think it is just an erroneous retention
>>      of text from earlier?
> [acm]
> Exactly, it is a note left-stranded by editing later in the section,
> thanks for catching it - deleted in the working version.
> 
>>
>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>      If there are no roles to define in 5.3.6, shouldn't it say "N/A"
> [acm]
> Actually, it should define the Roles (Src and Dst) as with other Metrics.
> Something went wrong with formatting here - the text below the
> section header disappeared... thanks for catching that!
> 
>>      Some comments and remarks say "None" which makes sense.  Some say
>>      "Additional (Informational) details for this entry" which seems to be
>>      text left over from the template that should say "None"?
> [acm]
> Right,  found and replaced in working copy.
> 
>>
>