Last Call Review of draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-07
review-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-07-iotdir-lc-palombini-2017-12-13-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-07
Requested rev. 07
Type Last Call Review
Team Internet of Things Directorate (iotdir)
Deadline 2017-11-25
Requested 2017-11-12
Requested by Terry Manderson
Other Reviews Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Magnus Nystrom
Genart Last Call review of -07 by Matthew Miller
Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Carlos Martinez
Tsvart Telechat review of -07 by Yoshifumi Nishida
Comments
INT and IOT reviewers, please pay additional attention to section 2.1.  Stable Connectivity for Centralized OAM

Security reviewers, in addition to the Sec Considerations section please review section 2.1.7.  Encryption of data-plane connections

Thanks!
Review State Completed
Reviewer Francesca Palombini
Review review-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-07-iotdir-lc-palombini-2017-12-13
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/Iot-dir/NxlavY_8agiEzs8jCLJgMOOTgDE
Reviewed rev. 07
Review result Ready with Nits
Draft last updated 2017-12-13
Review completed: 2017-12-13

Review
review-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-07-iotdir-lc-palombini-2017-12-13

Hi,

I am the assigned reviewer from the IoT directorate for this document. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

Document: draft-ietf-anima-stable-connectivity-07
Reviewer: Francesca Palombini
Review Date: 2017-12-13

Overall comment: I think this document is ready for publication as informational, with some nits (mostly typos and editorial), listed below. Note that I did not include nits that were already underlined by other reviewers ( https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/SJGDKh34-J9gU8P7KJjEnryAUMM and https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/ouSMdOa3t_tq6xqYGDivdkyyZlQ) 

* Abstract: "OAM (Operations, Administration and Maintenance - as per BCP161, (RFC6291) processes for data networks are often subject" should be "OAM (Operations, Administration and Maintenance - as per BCP161, [RFC6291]) for data networks is often subject"

* Abstract: "This document describes how to integrate OAM processes with the autonomic control plane (ACP)" should be "This document describes how to integrate OAM processes with the Autonomic Control Plane (ACP)"

* Section 1.1 (suggestion): it would have been good to have a "Terminology" section, that would expand on the most used terms, such as "autonomic", as well as reference the list of documents listed in section 2.1, first paragraph.

* Section 2, second bullet: "The are" should be "There are"

* Section 2, third bullet: "autonomic network" should be "Autonomic Network (AN)", as the abbreviation is used in section 2.1.6 too. 

* Section 2.1.1 (question): "as defined in section 6.1 of [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane]" is this the right section referenced? Could not see what is mentioned there.

* Section 2.1.1: "NMS hosts" NMS should be expanded (1st time used)

* Section 2.1.1: "spearate" should be "separate"

* Section 2.1.1 (suggestion): "NMS that performs SNMP read operations for status checking," should be "performing SNMP read operations for status checking by NMS,"

* Section 2.1.1: "for network devices as" should be "for network devices such as"

* Section 2.1.2: "that is, operator cannot achieve desired goals with this setup" should be "that is, operators cannot achieve desired goals with this setup"

* Section 2.1.2: "candiate" should be "candidate"

* Section 2.1.3 (question): is "ACP connect section of [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane]" section 8.1 of [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane]? It would be good to have the reference for easier reading.

* Section 2.1.3 (suggestion): please expand on the doc used before referencing the RFC; for example: "That document also specifies how the NOC devices can receive autoconfigured addressing and routes towards the ACP connect subnet if it supports [RFC6724] and [RFC4191]" could be something like "That document also specifies how the NOC devices can receive autoconfigured addressing and routes towards the ACP connect subnet if it supports Default Address Selection for IPv6 [RFC6724] and Default Router Preferences [RFC4191]"

* Section 2.1.3: "See the ACP document text for more details." a direct reference would help the reader here.

* Section 2.1.4 (question): "Independent of whether the data plane is dual-stack, has IPv4 as a service or is single stack IPv6." This sentence is unclear to me, is it missing words maybe?

* Section 2.1.4: "IPv4 only management" should be "IPv4-only management" (2 occurences)

* Section 2.1.4 (question): "This means that stateless SIIT based solutions are sufficient and preferred." If I understand correctly, SIIT is the only method mentioned here that solves the requirements; in this case, using the term preferred is maybe not necessary (since we are not comparing to others). If that's correct, I suggest removing "and preferred".

* Section 2.1.4 (suggestion): again, please expand on the names of the RFC before referencing them: RFC1918 and RFC7757

* Section 2.1.4: "Assume the ACP uses the Zone Addressing Sub-Scheme and there are 3 registrars." missing a word?

* Section 2.1.4 (suggestion): "In the Zone Addressing Sub-Scheme, there is for each registrar a constant /112 prefix for which in RFC7757 an EAM (Explicit Address Mapping) into a /16 (eg: RFC1918) prefix into IPv4 can be configured." is unclear. Does rephrasing to "In the Zone Addressing Sub-Scheme, for each registrar there is a constant /112 prefix that can be configured through an EAM (Explicit Address Mapping) into a /16 prefix in IPv4 (e.g. RFC1918)" keep the original meaning?

* Section 2.1.4:  "it is unlikely that one wants or need to translate" should be "it is unlikely that one wants or needs to translate"

* Section 2.1.4: "Eg: that IPv4 only NMS hosts" should be "E.g.: that IPv4-only NMS hosts"

* Section 2.1.5: "but the data-plane connectivity is only present under normal operations but will not be present during e.g.  early stages of device bootstrap," should be "but the data-plane connectivity is only present under normal operations and will not be present during e.g. early stages of device bootstrap,"

* Section 2.1.5: "caries" should be "carries"

* Section 2.1.5: expand the first occurrence of "VRF"

* Section 2.1.6: expand the first occurrence of "AN"

* Section 2.1.8: "IPv4 only applications" should be "IPv4-only applications"

* Section 3.1: "IPv4 only NOC solutions" should be "IPv4-only NOC solutions"

* Section 4: "to voluntarily list your own the ULA ACP prefixes" should be "to voluntarily list your own ULA ACP prefixes"

* Section 4: expand ULA on first use

Francesca