Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-06.txt

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

Mach,

Thank you very much for your quick review.

Regards,
Alia

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 3:10 AM, Mach Chen <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
> The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
> drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes
> on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to
> the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please
> see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
>
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
> would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last
> Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
> discussion or by updating the draft.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-06.txt
>  Reviewer: Mach Chen
>  Review Date: 2016/1/18
>  IETF LC End Date:
>  Intended Status: Standard Track
>
> Summary:
>  I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be
> resolved before publication.
>
> Comments:
>  The document is well written and easy to read.
>
>
> Minor Issues:
>
> 1.
> The draft Intended status shows: Standards Track, but the Intended RFC
> status in the datatracker is "Informational". I think the latter is true,
> right? If so, please update it accordingly.
>
>
> 2.
> Section 5.2
> Client Address:   This is the network address of the Client that
>       connected to the Agent.  For example, this may be an IPv4 or IPv6
>       address.  [Note: will I2RS support interactions that have no
>       network address?  If so this field will need to be updated.]
>
> IMHO, the Note should be deleted for a to-be-published document. The IPv4
> and IPv6 are just examples, the description here does not exclude other
> possibilities.
>
>
> 3. Section 5.2
> Requested Operation Data:   This field comprises the data passed to
>       the Agent to complete the desired operation.  For example, if the
>       operation is a route add operation, the Operation Data would
>       include the route prefix, prefix length, and next hop information
>       to be inserted as well as the specific routing table to which the
>       route will be added.  The operation data can also include
>       interface information.
>
> Although the last sentence above is right, why do we need to emphasize the
> "interface information" here? If there is no special intention, I'd suggest
> to remove it.
>
>
> 3. Section 5.2
> Transaction ID:   The Transaction Identity is an opaque string that
>       represents this particular operation is part of a long-running
>       I2RS transaction that can consist of multiple...
>
> Here you specify that an Transaction ID is an opaque string, are there
> other possibilities (e.g., uint) ? Since this is just an information model,
> how the data type should be is specific to the data model, I'd suggest to
> remove the data type limitation from this document.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Mach
>