Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-07

Request Review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-04-27
Requested 2018-04-09
Authors Ruth Civil, Al Morton, Reshad Rahman, Mahesh Jethanandani, Kostas Pentikousis
Draft last updated 2018-04-16
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -00 by Jan Lindblad (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -09 by Victor Kuarsingh (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -07 by Pete Resnick (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Adam Montville (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Pete Resnick (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Pete Resnick
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-07-genart-lc-resnick-2018-04-16
Reviewed rev. 07 (document currently at 13)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2018-04-16


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


Document: draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-07
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2018-04-16
IETF LC End Date: 2018-04-27
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat


This document appears ready to go forward. The only "issue" I have here might end up being an editorial issue, but I list it as a Minor issue because it might be substantive.

Major issues:


Minor issues:

In the paragraph after Figure 3, it says, "and subsequent values are monotonically increasing". I'm not sure I understand what that means. If 0 is the highest priority, then 1 is a *lower* priority than 0, not an increasing priority. If you are trying to say that the numeric value of the priority field is increasing by 1 for each subsequent value, then "monotonically increasing" is wrong; the sequence "0 2 5 36" is monotonically increasing. You'd say instead, "and subsequent values increase by one". If all you mean is that values start at 0 and go up from there, I think you should just delete the entire phrase; it doesn't add anything and strikes me as confusing.

Nits/editorial comments: 

Why are RFC 4086, RFC 8018, and ietf-ippm-metric-registry Informative References instead of Normative? The uses appear to be normative.

I'm not clear why the examples were split between Section 6 and Appendix A; seems like you could just use the long one in section 6 and explain only the important bits. I also note that neither of them make any claims about normativity: That is, most examples in documents I see always say something like, "If there is a conflict between anything here and the syntax in the model, the model wins." Is that not the case in these sorts of model documents?

Pet peeve: Except in Acknowledgements, I really don't like the use of "we" in IETF documents (even though it's becoming more and more common). It's not clear to whom it refers (the WG? the authors? the IETF?). In most places, it can be replaced with "This document", or using passive voice (e.g., s/We define X as/X is defined as). There are only 4 occurrences: Abstract, 1.1, 3, and 3.1. Easy enough to change.

Note to shepherd: In the shepherding writeup, question 1 is not answered correctly. This document is going for *Proposed* Standard, not *Internet* Standard. Further, there is no explanation for why this should be a standards track document (though I believe the answer is pretty straightforward). You should go correct that. While you're at it, you can update answer 15, as that nit was corrected.