Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-forces-interop-07

Request Review of draft-ietf-forces-interop
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2013-05-13
Requested 2013-05-02
Authors Weiming Wang , Kentaro Ogawa , Evangelos Haleplidis , Ming Gao , Jamal Hadi Salim
I-D last updated 2013-05-13
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -07 by Ben Campbell (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -08 by Ben Campbell (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Sam Hartman (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Ben Campbell
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-forces-interop by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 09)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2013-05-13
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at


Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-forces-interop-07
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2013-05-13
IETF LC End Date: 2013-05-13
IESG Telechat date:

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as an informational RFC. I
have a few minor questions and editorial comments that may be worth considering
prior to publication.

*** Major issues:


*** Minor issues:

-- The draft mentions a couple of instances of tests that failed because of an
incorrect implementation or differing encapsulation formats. Does this suggest
that the specifications should be clarified? In particular, in the case of
encapsulation format mismatch, should the specs include stronger requirements
to be able to receive all encapsulation formats? Or should the number of
options be reduced?

-- I have a mild concern that the use of origin country names for each
implementation could confuse readers into thinking that the countries
themselves officially participated, rather than organizations from each country.

-- section 4.4, last paragraph:

The text says that since the mentioned failures were likely the result of bugs,
it doesn't indicate an interoperability problem in the specs. I have to point
out that, it also doesn't prove interoperability in both directions for the
particular test. It would also be worth commenting on whether the probably bugs
were programming errors rather than misunderstandings of the specification.

*** Nits/editorial comments:

-- The draft uses inconsistent verb tense throughout. I found this a bit
confusing, as I assume the draft talks entirely about tests that have already

-- IDNits points out that you have several references without explicit
citations. I see that you called the references out by name in the text, but it
would be better to include the citations.

-- Section 1, paragraph 6:

Please expand abbreviations on first mention.

-- Section 1.1:

Please expand FE on first mention.

-- section 2.2.2, paragraph 1: "... from China and Japan implementations..."

Missing "the".

Is it possible to add a reference for details on the Smartbits testing machine?

-- Figure 2:

Do you really want to publish the IP addresses used in an RFC? RFCs live

-- Section 2.2.2, paragraph after figure 2:

First sentence does not parse.

-- Figure 3:

The figure has some formatting issues, at least in the PDF version. Also, is it
possible to avoid splitting the figure across the page break?

-- section 3.2, paragraph 3: "Because of system deficiency to deploy IPSec over
TML in Greece,..."

Phrase doesn't parse.

-- section 3.2, paragraph 4: "... over IPSec channel."

Missing "the".

" have established..."

to establish.

-- section 4 and subsections:

It seems like some of the test descriptions in 4.X may be redundant to the
previous scenario descriptions.

-- section 4.1, notes on 28 and 29:

Sentence does not parse.

... notes on 30 and 31:

Missing articles.

-- section 5.1, last paragraph in list item "2.": "The interoperability test
witnessed that..."

The test _showed_...   [or the _testers_ witnessed...]

-- section 9:

It would be worth mentioning that you explicitly tested for IPSec support.