Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-12

Request Review of draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 16)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-11-06
Requested 2019-10-23
Authors Al Morton , Marcelo Bagnulo , Philip Eardley , Kevin D'Souza
I-D last updated 2019-11-01
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -12 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Paul Wouters (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joel M. Halpern
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 12 (document currently at 16)
Result Ready
Completed 2019-11-01
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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-12
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2019-11-01
IETF LC End Date: 2019-11-06
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

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

Side note: I presume that as part of the process for
draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry (the normative reference the defines the
structure used in this document) there has been discussion with IANA explicitly
about the fact that this registry has an extremely large number of columns,
some with extremely verbose content, and it will likely take some work for IANA
to determine how to present this in a human-readable fashion?  And the lesser
point that is probably covered by existing procedures, but I wanted to check,
that IANA is prepared to fill in the URLs scattered throughout the document?

Second note:  I did not review the accuracy of the descriptions of the metrics,
but only looked for clarity.  This is material well known to the WG, and mostly
derived from other documents this or closely related working groups have

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues:
    For those entries that are defining two (or more) closely related metrics,
    should the document actually have two (or more) lines for URL, since the
    text says that IANA is to assign two URLs.  (And the list of differing
    fields should presumably include URL?)

    In the first part of section 5, there is a note about potentially splitting
    the registry entry into two registry entries.  I can not understand the
    note.  The registry is either defined with one entry or defined with two
    entries.  Is this still an open item?  (If so, my "ready" above clearly
    should be "Ready with issues.")  I think it is just an erroneous retention
    of text from earlier?

Nits/editorial comments:
    If there are no roles to define in 5.3.6, shouldn't it say "N/A"

    Some comments and remarks say "None" which makes sense.  Some say
    "Additional (Informational) details for this entry" which seems to be text
    left over from the template that should say "None"?