Last Call 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)|
|Authors||Len Ciavattone , Ruediger Geib , Al Morton , Matthias Wieser|
|I-D last updated||2012-08-14|
Genart Last Call review of -??
by Brian E. Carpenter
Genart Telechat review of -?? by Brian E. Carpenter
|Assignment||Reviewer||Brian E. Carpenter|
|Request||Last Call review on draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679 by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned|
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.