Last Call Review of draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-09
review-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-09-genart-lc-knodel-2023-12-18-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2023-12-19
Requested 2023-12-05
Authors Greg Mirsky , Fabrice Theoleyre , Georgios Z. Papadopoulos , Carlos J. Bernardos , Balazs Varga , János Farkas
I-D last updated 2023-12-18
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -09 by Mallory Knodel (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -07 by Tal Mizrahi (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Mallory Knodel
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/_x_KrEoU8Z1ZGGg3BqK1ijM19Og
Reviewed revision 09 (document currently at 11)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2023-12-18
review-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-09-genart-lc-knodel-2023-12-18-00
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://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-ietf-detnet-oam-framework-??
Reviewer: Mallory Knodel
Review Date: 2023-12-18
IETF LC End Date: 2023-12-19
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: The document summarizes the OAM requirements of DetNet networks. The
document provides a good background of the necessary OAM components and
presents the requirements of the OAM solutions.

Major issues:
 * Figure should be svg because on a device that rewraps the text this will get
 (is already) totally messed up on smaller screens. * Suggest a privacy
 considerations section that at least references the text in rfc9055, or
 perhaps elaborates on it given the OAM provides a lot of signals.

Minor issues:
 * It seems to me that there is no meaningful difference between definitions
 and terminology so perhaps just collapse these two sections, or provide some
 other compelling reason to present them separately to the reader. * This is a
 general review and I am not an expert so take this for what it's worth, but I
 am unclear on why there would be so many MUSTs for monitoring requirements and
 perhaps they should be should?

Nits/editorial comments:

 * 5. Are the paragraph indents intended to be bulleted or numbered?
 * 6.1 and 6.2 subtitles can remove "Requirements on OAM for DetNet" as they
 are redundant