Last Call Review of draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-07
review-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-07-genart-lc-miller-2017-11-26-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-11-26
Requested 2017-11-12
Other Reviews Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Magnus Nystrom (diff)
Iotdir Last Call review of -07 by Francesca Palombini (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Carlos Martínez (diff)
Tsvart Telechat review of -07 by Yoshifumi Nishida (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Matthew Miller
Review review-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-07-genart-lc-miller-2017-11-26
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/ouSMdOa3t_tq6xqYGDivdkyyZlQ
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 10)
Review result Ready with Nits
Draft last updated 2017-11-26
Review completed: 2017-11-26

Review
review-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-07-genart-lc-miller-2017-11-26

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-anima-stable-connectivity-07
Reviewer: Matthew A. Miller
Review Date: 2017-11-26
IETF LC End Date: 2017-11-26
IESG Telechat date: N/A

Summary:

This document is ready to be published as informational, but there are
a number of nits that ought be addressed before final publication.

Overall, the document is 

Major issues:  NONE

Minor issues:  NONE

Nits/editorial comments:

* Throughout, there is a mix of the term "data plane" and "data-plane".
  One form should be chosen and the rest corrected to match.

* In Section 1.2. "Data Communications Networks (DCNs)", first
  paragraph; "'th" should be "'s" (or just "s"): "In the late
  1990'th and ..." should be "In the late 1990s and ...".

* In Section 1.2. "Data Communications Networks (DCNs)", first
  paragraph; the word "where" should be "were" in the fragment
  "These where (and still are) ...".

* In Section 1.2. "Data Communications Networks (DCNs)", first
  paragraph; there is a missing "a" between "are" and "separate" in
  the fragment "they are separate network entirely".

* In Section 2.1.1. "Simple Connectivity for Non-ACP capable NMS
  Hosts", first paragraph; there is a mismatch in plurality in the
  third sentence; instead of:
  
  """
  They acts as the default router to those NMS hosts and provide them
  with IPv6 connectivity into the ACP.
  """
  
  it should be:
  
  """
  They act as the default routers to those NMS hosts and provide them
  with IPv6 connectivity into the ACP.
  """

* In Section 2.1.3. "Simultaneous ACP and Data Plane Connectivity",
  last paragraph; the following sentence seems to be missing a word
  or two:

  """
  If the secure ACP was extendable via untrusted routers then it would
  be a lot more verify the secure domain assertion.
  """

* In Section 2.1.4. "IPv4-only NMS Hosts", second paragraph after the
  ordered list; the word "thought" should be "through" in the fragment
  "... be reachable thought the IPv6/IPv4 ...".

* In Section 2.1.5. "Path Selection Policies", fourth paragraph from
  the section's end; there is an extra "of" between "shaping" and "at":
  
  """
  Traffic policing and/or shaping of at the ACP edge in the NOC can be
  used to throttle applications such as software download into the ACP.
  """

* In Section 2.2. "Stable Connectivity for Distributed Network/OAM",
  second paragraph; there is a missing "to" between "start" and
  "provide" in the fragment "... tried to start provide common ...".

* In Section 2.2. "Stable Connectivity for Distributed Network/OAM",
  second paragraph; the word "applicable" should be "applied" in the
  fragment "... how ell it applicable to a ...".

* In Section 3.1. "No IPv4 for ACP", third paragraph; the word "as"
  should be "to" in the fragment "... from a native transport as just
  a service on the edge."

* In Section 3.1. "No IPv4 for ACP", last paragraph; the word "type"
  should be "types" in the fragment "In other type of networks as
  well, ...".

* In Section 3.1. "No IPv4 for ACP", last paragraph; the word "support"
  should be "supported" in the fragment "... family will be support so
  all use...".