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

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

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.