Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-04
review-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-04-opsdir-lc-kumari-2014-04-03-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2014-03-25
Requested 2014-02-14
Draft last updated 2014-04-03
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Warren Kumari (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Warren Kumari
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-04-opsdir-lc-kumari-2014-04-03
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 05)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2014-04-03

Review
review-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-04-opsdir-lc-kumari-2014-04-03

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
operational area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

Overview:  I reviewed draft-ietf-ippm-testplan-rfc2680-04 - "Test Plan
and Results for Advancing RFC 2680 on the Standards Track"

This document memo proposes advancing a performance metric RFC along
the  standards track.

I see no operational impact in this document being published.

------
Personal notes:
Note: I have not been following this document, nor the IPPM WG.

"The conclusion reached is that [RFC2680] should be advanced on the

   Standards Track with modifications.  The revised text of RFC 2680bis
   is ready for review [I-D.morton-ippm-2680-bis], but awaits work-in
   progress to update the IPPM Framework [RFC2330].  Therefore, this
   memo documents the information to support [RFC2680] advancement, and
   the approval of RFC2680bis is left for future action."

It seems odd to me to progress a document published 14 years ago if
there is a -bis in the works, but I did not follow (or research!) and
of the background discussions. If that's what the WG / IESG decided,
no worries...


Incredibly tiny nit:
The ASCII art diagrams a nicely done, but the second one has some
extra parentheses in the Internet "cloud". My OCDness forced me to
mention this!