Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-14

Request Review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 20)
Type Telechat Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2022-02-13
Requested 2022-02-03
Requested by Éric Vyncke
Authors Jaehoon Paul Jeong , Patrick Lingga , Susan Hares , Liang Xia , Henk Birkholz
I-D last updated 2022-02-07
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -04 by Andy Bierman (diff)
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -06 by Andy Bierman (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -12 by Dale R. Worley (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -12 by Valery Smyslov (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Melinda Shore (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -12 by Kyle Rose (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -14 by Melinda Shore (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -14 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
No need of course to review the YANG model itself but well the rest of the I-D ;-)
Assignment Reviewer Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 14 (document currently at 20)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2022-02-07
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for <
*draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-14*>. These comments were
written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document
editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would
treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with
any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on
the INT Directorate, see <>.

*Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as
DISCUSS due to one item.*
*I have the following DISCUSS issue:*

It looks to me like Section 6.2.2 is just about notification of
configuration change but some of the subpoints under seem to be about
errors and/or seem to have been copied from 6.2.1 without change when they
should have been edited.

*The following are other issues I found with this document that SHOULD be
corrected before publication:*

Section 4, first sentence: I don't think "consuming" is the right word.
Perhaps "checking".

Section 4, 2nd paragraph: So, three domains of monitoring data are
"highlighted", which sounds like incomplete coverage. But in other places,
the word "comprehensive" is used. Does this document encompass all
monitoring data and if not can you describe the subset covered in some more
specific way than saying it is the "basic" data? This document should be
clear which it is.

Sections 6.3.1 through 6.3.5 discuss a number of types of events. Are those
the only events that can be reported? Does the document indicate whether
the list of event types is complete or not? To a lesser extent this comment
may apply to other 6.*.* sections.

*The following are minor issues with the document:*

Section 4.2, Should "*the information of sessions and** traffic flows"
be* "information
about sessions and traffic flows" ?

Section 4.3. Since they are called simply "push" and "pull" elsewhere in
the draft, why are these longer and more confusing "unsolicited poll" and
"solicited pull" used here?

Section 6: Uses of "unsolicited information" should probably be replaced by
wording using "push".

Sections 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 6.3.4, 6.3.5 all talk about reporting geographic
location. Who figures out what that information is? How accurate does it
need to be?

Numerous minor grammer things as marked on the attached document.

 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA