Since this issue has already been considered by the wg I'm fine if you
leave things as they are.
Thanks,
Paul
On 6/14/22 2:26 AM, Tal Mizrahi wrote:
Dear Paul,
Many thanks for the comments.
Please see my response below, marked [TM].
Cheers,
Tal.
On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 9:01 PM Paul Kyzivat <pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
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-ippm-ioam-flags-08
Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
Review Date: 2022-06-??
IETF LC End Date: 2022-06-14
IESG Telechat date: ?
Summary:
This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should
be fixed before publication.
Issues:
Major: 0
Minor: 0
Nits: 2
1) NIT: Doc name inconsistent with scope
The name & title of this draft isn't very indicative of the content of
the document. This document doesn't just define the *flag* for loopback;
it also defines the entire loopback *mechanism*, which is a much bigger
deal.
It appears to me that the primary function of the document is to define
the loopback mechanism, with the definition of the flag being necessary
but secondary.
This could be fixed by simply changing the name and title of the
document. (Or at least the title since the name will disappear in the
resulting rfc.)
Or the specification of the loopback *mechanism* could be moved to a
different document and this document reduced to simply defining the flags.
[TM] There is a delicate history here. Originally, the loopback and
active functionality were part of RFC 9197 (before it was published as
an RFC). At some point the working group commented that flag
definition should be separated from the data field definition (RFC
9197). Here is the discussion about this in IETF 104, and specifically
notice the text "regarding the editorials, the draft specify out of
scope context, shouldn’t specify protocol behavior. Will be discussed
in side meetings ... repeated for the active flag":
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/minutes-104-ippm-00
It was then further discussed in the following side meeting, and the
decision was to have a separate draft that defines the loopback and
active flag:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/XwOLqE-SLYoHL_x613BNgX2RORI/
I would suggest to stay with the current document title, since any
change can potentially restart this delicate discussion again.
2) NIT: Outdated reference
IdNits reports:
== Outdated reference: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data has been published as
RFC 9197
[TM] Agreed. Will be fixed.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
