Telechat Review of draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-

Request Review of draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2012-05-08
Requested 2012-04-26
Authors Malcolm Betts
Draft last updated 2012-05-11
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -?? by Christer Holmberg
Genart Telechat review of -?? by Christer Holmberg
Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Jeffrey Hutzelman
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg 
State Completed Snapshot
Review review-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-genart-telechat-holmberg-2012-05-11
Review completed: 2012-05-11


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <>.


Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.


Document: draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-04

Reviewer: Christer Holmberg

Review Date: 7 May 2012

IETF LC End Date: 21 March 2012

IESG Telechat date: 10 May 2012


Summary: The draft is ready for publication, with a couple of editorial nits.


Major issues: -


Minor issues: -


Nits/editorial comments:


(The comments also applied to the -03 version, and I apologize for not bringing them up when I reviewed that version.)


- General: G-ACh is mentioned throughout the document, but only in section 4 is there a reference to RFC 5586. I suggest to add a reference on first occurrence at least to section 1. It would probably be good also in section 3.


- Section 1: What is the purpose of the last paragraph, talking about IETF Experts not agreeing? For someone who has not followed the work, it seems as little strange.


- Section 3: The text says “The G-ACh Type assigned by this document”. I guess it would be better to say e.g. “based on this document”.