[tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-usr-exp-10 ietf last call Opsdir review

Niclas Comstedt via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 04 August 2025 21:40 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietf.org
Delivered-To: tsvwg@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from [10.244.4.86] (unknown [104.131.183.230]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA75F4FB83AA; Mon, 4 Aug 2025 14:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Niclas Comstedt via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: ops-dir@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.44.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <175434365952.1011359.2528502233617704826@dt-datatracker-5bd446d5fd-c47nq>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2025 14:40:59 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: ZN7L3IFG4AB7USGUJXL7W4L5UX7XGCSP
X-Message-ID-Hash: ZN7L3IFG4AB7USGUJXL7W4L5UX7XGCSP
X-MailFrom: noreply@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tsvwg.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: draft-ietf-tsvwg-usr-exp.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Reply-To: Niclas Comstedt <nco@comstedt.net>
Subject: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-usr-exp-10 ietf last call Opsdir review
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/jaXFy2ZiuWQDDoT8gBzrQpG97m8>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tsvwg-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tsvwg-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tsvwg-leave@ietf.org>

Document: draft-ietf-tsvwg-usr-exp
Title: User Ports for Experiments
Reviewer: Niclas Comstedt
Review result: Has Nits


I have reviewed this document as part of the Ops area directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Ops area directors.
Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other
last-call comments.

Summary: The objective and rational along with the proposed solution of 
establishing user space ports for experiments make sense. My only slight
concern or nits is around the registration language and longevity of this.
Specifically I find the language in section 4 to be a little less clear than
ideal around registration encouragement (e.g. the phrasing in first paragraph
mixing the "bar of registration" with that of encouraging registration which
comes again later in section 4). And while I don't think it takes away from
the reason for this I do wonder how experiments move from this to permanent
solutions (where applicable), i.e. the lack of mentioning it and/or 
encouraging registering for permanent ports (which I assume is the path).

Regards,
    Niclas