MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Harald Alvestrand via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <art@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: 
 <179232063088.177602.15529250894970624912@dt-datatracker-7457c9c988-pqlqx>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2026 03:50:30 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: FVARWUYSETDI2CR7QFUG3WWBCTSCKBC7
CC: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org,
 opsawg@ietf.org
Reply-To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Subject: [Last-Call] draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis-09 ietf last call Artart review
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/wbTceyn47GwMPDmUKbl5hvypdM0>

Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis
Title: Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management in IETF
Specifications Reviewer: Harald Alvestrand Review result: Ready

I earlier reviewed this document at -01, as early review.

The status last time was “ready with issues”.

Three major points were raised in that review:

* Monitoring the service
Section 5.7.3 has added a note “Note that monitoring the service must consider
the utility to the user”. Furthermore, it says “This includes responsiveness,
smoothness (absence of jitter), throughput, and other "quality of experience"
factors.”. This formulation seems somewhat network-layer-centric; when, for
instance, monitoring a mail service, there is one overarching concern: “Does
the mail get delivered?” - all else is really secondary - a monitoring that
doesn’t check that mail gets delivered is useless. Section 4.6 actually has
better text on this point. However, the point is addressed, albeit weakly.

* Password-based authentication
The response to this concern was to delete most of the security considerations
section, replacing it with a reference to section 5.8. Section 5.8 does an
adequate job of describing the related issues, and most importantly doesn’t say
anything that could be taken to recommend passwords.

* Appendix A relationship to [Checklist]
This is now reasonably clear - the Appendix A questions are different from the
Checklist questions, and protocol developers should consider both.

All the nits raised in that review were addressed.

With those fixes in (albeit with some grumbling), and no new issues arising
from a new review, I consider this document ready.