Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-08
review-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-08-genart-lc-kyzivat-2022-06-12-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2022-06-14
Requested 2022-05-31
Authors Tal Mizrahi , Frank Brockners , Shwetha Bhandari , Barak Gafni , Mickey Spiegel
I-D last updated 2022-06-12
Completed reviews Secdir Early review of -06 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Tsvart Early review of -06 by Dr. Bernard D. Aboba (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -08 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -09 by Pascal Thubert (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Paul Kyzivat
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/Ihbz6YjPyQJd35eZRxLj19PsaoU
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 10)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2022-06-12
review-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-08-genart-lc-kyzivat-2022-06-12-00
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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

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

Document: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-08
Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
Review Date: 2022-06-??
IETF LC End Date: 2022-06-14
IESG Telechat date: ?

Summary:

This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should 
be fixed before publication.

Issues:

Major: 0
Minor: 0
Nits:  2

1) NIT: Doc name inconsistent with scope

The name & title of this draft isn't very indicative of the content of 
the document. This document doesn't just define the *flag* for loopback; 
it also defines the entire loopback *mechanism*, which is a much bigger 
deal.

It appears to me that the primary function of the document is to define 
the loopback mechanism, with the definition of the flag being necessary 
but secondary.

This could be fixed by simply changing the name and title of the 
document. (Or at least the title since the name will disappear in the 
resulting rfc.)

Or the specification of the loopback *mechanism* could be moved to a 
different document and this document reduced to simply defining the flags.

2) NIT: Outdated reference

IdNits reports:
  == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data has been published as
     RFC 9197