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 revision 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
Authors Ron Bonica , Reji Thomas , Jen Linkova , Chris Lenart , Mohamed Boucadair
I-D last updated 2017-11-30
Completed reviews Intdir Early review of -06 by Jean-Michel Combes (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -07 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -07 by Yaron Sheffer (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -07 by Stefan Winter (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joel M. Halpern
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-intarea-probe by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 10)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2017-11-30
review-ietf-intarea-probe-07-genart-telechat-halpern-2017-11-30-00
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 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."