Telechat Review of draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-
|Requested revision||No specific revision (document currently at 03)|
|Team||General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)|
|Authors||Len Ciavattone , Ruediger Geib , Al Morton , Matthias Wieser|
|I-D last updated||2012-08-24|
Genart Last Call review of -??
by Brian E. Carpenter
Genart Telechat review of -?? by Brian E. Carpenter
|Assignment||Reviewer||Brian E. Carpenter|
|Request||Telechat review on draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679 by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned|
Please see attached review. I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html ). Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2679-02.txt Reviewer: Brian Carpenter Review Date: 2012-08-24 IETF LC End Date: 2012-08-14 IESG Telechat date: 2012-08-30 Summary: Almost ready -------- Note: The unpublished -03 draft deals with all my comments below. ----- 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.