Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-
review-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-genart-lc-carpenter-2012-08-14-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 03)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2012-08-14
Requested 2012-08-03
Authors Len Ciavattone , Ruediger Geib , Al Morton , Matthias Wieser
I-D last updated 2012-08-14
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -?? by Brian E. Carpenter
Genart Telechat review of -?? by Brian E. Carpenter
Assignment Reviewer Brian E. Carpenter
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679 by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Result Almost ready
Completed 2012-08-14
review-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-genart-lc-carpenter-2012-08-14-00
Please see attached review.





I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-02.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2012-08-09
IETF LC End Date: 2012-08-14
IESG Telechat date: 

Summary:  Almost ready
--------

Comment:
--------

I missed the discussion of RFC 6576, but I note that its abstract is logically
inconsistent  with RFC 6410, in that the standards track no longer requires
formal interoperability reports. 6576 also fails to mention checking errata as
required by 6410.

Significant issues:
-------------------

At the end of section 6:

>   Only the Type-P-One-way-Delay-Inverse-Percentile has been ignored in
>   both implementations, so it is a candidate for removal in RFC2679bis.

What is this telling us? That RFC 2769 isn't ready for advancement?
Or that this is the only discrepancy and can be safely ignored?

In fact, what is the overall conclusion? I was really expecting to find
a summary and conclusion at the end of the document. The Abstract says
that the draft proposes advancement, but the body of the text doesn't
actually say that anywhere that I noticed.

Nits:
-----

> o  Test duration = 300 seconds (March 29)

This and other dates should include the year.

There's one erratum against RFC 2679. While it's trivial, according to the
criteria in RFC 6410, it should be reviewed. One sentence would be enough.