Telechat Review of draft-ietf-intarea-probe-07
review-ietf-intarea-probe-07-genart-telechat-halpern-2017-11-30-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-intarea-probe
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-12-12
Requested 2017-11-28
Other Reviews Intdir Early review of -06 by Jean-Michel Combes (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -07 by Yaron Sheffer (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -07 by Stefan Winter (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Joel Halpern
Review review-ietf-intarea-probe-07-genart-telechat-halpern-2017-11-30
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/yjqddexcZvkh1-SP-2Wv61I4KY8
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 10)
Review result Almost Ready
Draft last updated 2017-11-30
Review completed: 2017-11-30

Review
review-ietf-intarea-probe-07-genart-telechat-halpern-2017-11-30

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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-intarea-probe-07
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2017-11-30
IETF LC End Date: 2017-12-13
IESG Telechat date: 2017-12-14

Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.

Major issues:
    I can not determine from the text why two identification objects are sometimes allowed, or how they are to be used.  The texts seems to indicate that they can be somehow combined to identify a single probed interface.  But I can not see how.

Minor issues:
    In section 2.1 in describing the usage when the probed interface is identified by name or ifindex, the text refers to MIBII, RFC 2863.  I would expect to see it refer instead (or at least preferentially) to RFC 7223, the YANG model for the Interface stack.

    The E bit in the Extended ICMP Echo reply seems a bit odd.  Shall we try to encode all the possible interface types in this field?  Shall we try to distinguish Ethernet directly over fiber from Ethernet over ...?  What about an emulated Ethernet interface (pseudowire, etc.)  I do not understand why this is here, and fear it is ambiguous.


Nits/editorial comments: 
    I find the description of the node containing the proxy interface as being "the probed node" as being somewhat odd, as it is not the node containing the probed interface.  I would have expected it to be called "the proxy node"?

    Very nitpicky: In section 4, the step reading "If the Code Field is equal to No Error (0) and the L-bit is clear, set the A-Bit." probably ought to say "otherwise, clear the A-bit."