Re: [mpls] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-08

> On 29 Jun 2020, at 18:30, Pete Resnick via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Pete Resnick
> Review result: Ready with Issues
> 
> 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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-framework-08
> Reviewer: Pete Resnick
> Review Date: 2020-06-29
> IETF LC End Date: 2020-07-06
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary:
> 
> A couple of minor issues and a couple of *extremely* nitty nits, but overall
> looks ready to go.
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> None.
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> It is not clear to me why this is being sent for Informational instead of
> Proposed Standard. The shepherd's writeup does not justify it, and in fact the
> writeup refers to the document as a "specification", which is exactly what it
> appears to be. It defines the use of SFLs, describes how they are processed by
> the endpoints, describes how they are aggregated, etc. While the document may
> not be standalone, I don't see how it's really an Informational document. I
> suggest restarting the Last Call for Proposed, and if for some reason it needs
> to be Informational, it can always be downgraded after Last Call.

Pete - the “tradition” in routing is that such documents are Informational and the detailed protocol specifications are standards (there are a couple of those in progress about to finish baking). I leave it up to our AD to pass judgement on the matter as this is a simple fix, but I don’t think the changed status is REQUIRED.

> 
> The Security Considerations section says, "The issue noted in Section 6 is a
> security consideration." I'm not sure I understand why that is.

Section 6 explains the privacy considerations, and privacy and security are close friends so I cross referenced the section rather than repeating it. I suggest that we wait to see what SECDIR wants to do before changing any text.

> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> Section 1: "(see Section 3)" seems unnecessary.

I can take that out on the next version, it was intended as a forward reference to a completely new contract in MPLS.

> 
> Section 3: I thought the "Consider..." construction made those paragraphs
> unnecessarily wordy and a bit harder to follow.
> 
> 
I will reword the first two sentences  para 2 of section 3 to simplify the language.

Thanks for the comments

Stewart

> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art