Re: [spring] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-09: (with COMMENT)

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,

thanks for your comments. I started to agree text changes with my co-editor. Takeshi and you commented on the same sentence, which can't be parsed. 

   Your comment: -10 --5th paragraph: I can't parse the last sentence.
   Takeshi's comment: 3. This sentence "As it is necessary to know that the information is
      stale is order to follow the instruction, as is the case with for
      example convergence events that may be ongoing at the time of
      diagnostic measurement." is not easy to understand for me. I see some typo
      in this sentence as well.

This text proposal has been agreed between Carlos and me:

OLD: As it is necessary to know that the information is
   stale is order to follow the instruction, as is the case with for
   example convergence events that may be ongoing at the time of
   diagnostic measurement.

NEW: To carry out a desired measurement properly, the PMS must be aware of and respect the actual route changes, convergence events, as well as the assignment of Segment IDs relevant for measurements. At a minimum, the PMS must be able to listen to IGP topology changes, or pull routing and segment information from routers signaling topology changes.

Regards,

Ruediger

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Ben Campbell [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2017 04:46
An: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Betreff: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-09: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-09: 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://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Substantive Comments:

- General: I note there has been discussion about why this draft is Informational rather than something else. There's an explanation in the shepherd's writeup. It would be helpful to have the same explanation as a note in the draft. (People rarely read the shepherd's report once an RFC is
published.)

- 3, last paragraph: " Further options, like deployment of a PMS connecting to the MPLS domain by a tunnel only require more thought, as this implies security aspects." I have trouble parsing that. Is it intended as an open issue, or a statement that the "further options" are out of scope? Also, consider deleting the word "only".

-4.1, 2nd to last paragraph:
I'm not sure what to make of the "In theory at least," prefix. Normally IETF RFCs are about what (we hope) works in _practice_.

-10, last paragraph: I don't understand the intent of this paragraph.

Editorial Comments and Nits:
- section1, first sentence: s/operator/operators
- same section, first bullet: "operators" is repeated twice. (i.e. "operators
operators") -- third bullet: "allows to transport" should be either "allows <something> to transport" or "allows the transport". -- 4th bullet, last
sentence: I suggest the following: OLD: [...] since both sender and receiver have the same clock, sequence numbers to ease the measurement...). NEW: [...] since both sender and receiver have the same clock and sequence numbers to ease the measurement.).

-10, 2nd paragraph: " The PMS allows to insert "
That should either be "allows <something> to insert" or "Allows the insertion"
-- 3rd paragraph: I can't parse the sentence. Should "avoid a PMS to insert traffic" be "prevent a PMS from inserting traffic"? -- 4th paragraph:
s/personal/personnel -- 5th paragraph: I can't parse the last sentence. -- 6th
paragraph: "As soon as the PMS has an indication, that its IGP or MPLS topology are stale..." The comma between "indication" and "that" should be removed.