Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-06

Request Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2016-01-18
Requested 2016-01-15
Authors Joe Clarke , Gonzalo Salgueiro , Carlos Pignataro
I-D last updated 2016-01-18
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -09 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Watson Ladd (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Menachem Dodge (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -06 by Mach Chen (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -06 by Les Ginsberg (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Mach Chen
State Completed Snapshot
Review review-ietf-i2rs-traceability-06-rtgdir-early-chen-2016-01-18
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 11)
Result Has issues
Completed 2016-01-18

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ‚Äč

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-06.txt
 Reviewer: Mach Chen
 Review Date: 2016/1/18
 IETF LC End Date:
 Intended Status: Standard Track

 I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved
 before publication.

 The document is well written and easy to read.

Minor Issues:

The draft Intended status shows: Standards Track, but the Intended RFC status
in the datatracker is "Informational". I think the latter is true, right? If
so, please update it accordingly.

Section 5.2
Client Address:   This is the network address of the Client that
      connected to the Agent.  For example, this may be an IPv4 or IPv6
      address.  [Note: will I2RS support interactions that have no
      network address?  If so this field will need to be updated.]

IMHO, the Note should be deleted for a to-be-published document. The IPv4 and
IPv6 are just examples, the description here does not exclude other

3. Section 5.2
Requested Operation Data:   This field comprises the data passed to
      the Agent to complete the desired operation.  For example, if the
      operation is a route add operation, the Operation Data would
      include the route prefix, prefix length, and next hop information
      to be inserted as well as the specific routing table to which the
      route will be added.  The operation data can also include
      interface information.

Although the last sentence above is right, why do we need to emphasize the
"interface information" here? If there is no special intention, I'd suggest to
remove it.

3. Section 5.2
Transaction ID:   The Transaction Identity is an opaque string that
      represents this particular operation is part of a long-running
      I2RS transaction that can consist of multiple...

Here you specify that an Transaction ID is an opaque string, are there other
possibilities (e.g., uint) ? Since this is just an information model, how the
data type should be is specific to the data model, I'd suggest to remove the
data type limitation from this document.

Best regards,