Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-lmap-use-cases-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-lmap-use-cases
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-12-02
Requested 2014-11-20
Authors Marc Linsner , Philip Eardley , Trevor Burbridge , Frode Sorensen
I-D last updated 2015-05-07
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Ben Campbell (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -05 by Ben Campbell (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Hannes Tschofenig (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Bert Wijnen (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Ben Campbell
State Completed
Review review-ietf-lmap-use-cases-05-genart-telechat-campbell-2015-05-07
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 06)
Result Ready with Nits
Completed 2015-05-07
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-lmap-use-cases-05
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2014-12-02
IETF LC End Date: 2014-10-07
ESG Telechat date: 2014-12-04

Summary: The draft is basically ready for publication as an informational RFC.
All of the actionable issues from my last call review of version 04 have been
addressed. There are a few remaining editorial issues, below:

Nits/editorial comments:

-- General: This version is much improved from 04. However it still tends to
overuse parentheses in ways that are unnecessary and tend to break the flow of
reading. These can probably be handled by the RFC editor.

The following are editorial comments from my original review that I think need
further work:


> -- 2.1, third bullet, last sentence:
> The sentence hard to parse. Is the first comma intended?

The sentence needs work. Suggestion:

"The ISP requires visibility into the end-to-end performance of home and
enterprise networks,..."


> -- 3.1, 1st para, sentence starting with "The panel..."
> I'm confused by the nested lists, nested parentheses, and unexplained
ellipses. Also, it seems to contain a comma splice. Are there missing words?

The comma splice is fixed. The nested lists and ellipses are still confusing.
You might consider splitting lists out into separate "For example" sentences.

For example:
"For example, the operator's access technology might include fiber, HFC, or
DSL. It might offer broadband speeds of ...."

I also suggest dropping "(say)" and and the sentence-starting "So..." from
later in the paragraph.

> - 3.1, 1st para:
> Can you provide a definition or reference for "mean opinion score"?

Not addressed.

> -- 3.2:
> Overly complex sentence structure. Consider breaking into bullet lists.
Something seems messed up near " along the lines..." . Maybe a cut and paste

The bullet list improves things. Bullet 2 still contains a list of examples  in
the form of comma-spliced sentences.


> -- 4.1, 1st para, last sentence: "... mandate transparent information made
available..." > > Should that be "... be made available..."?

Fix attempted, but new typo "imade" introduced".

> -- 4.2, 3rd paragraph:
> Can you offer a definition for "probes"?

Not addressed.