Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ntf-10
review-ietf-opsawg-ntf-10-intdir-telechat-combes-2021-11-24-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ntf
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Telechat Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2021-11-23
Requested 2021-10-29
Requested by Éric Vyncke
Authors Haoyu Song , Fengwei Qin , Pedro Martinez-Julia , Laurent Ciavaglia , Aijun Wang
I-D last updated 2021-11-24
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -09 by Gyan Mishra (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Alexey Melnikov (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -09 by Sheng Jiang (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -09 by Michael Scharf (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -10 by Jean-Michel Combes (diff)
Rtgdir Telechat review of -10 by Dhruv Dhody (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Jean-Michel Combes
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-opsawg-ntf by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/vOq-S7WUKoUIcpmcN24z2vaOJxA
Reviewed revision 10 (document currently at 13)
Result Almost ready
Completed 2021-11-24
review-ietf-opsawg-ntf-10-intdir-telechat-combes-2021-11-24-00
Hi,

I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-opsawg-ntf-10. These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors.
Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they
would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along
with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on
the INT Directorate, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>.

Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as
DISCUSS.

I have the following DISCUSS:

The document is well written and gives a good overview of the telemetry
“environment”. But, I am really embarrassed by a sentence – hidden in a section
not always read at the end of the document: “6.  Security Considerations
...
The Network Telemetry Framework is not applicable to networks whose endpoints
represent individual users, such as general-purpose access networks.”

Here are the reasons regarding this DISCUSS
(1)     I assume next IETF works on Telemetry will be based on this document;
(2)     Such a disclaimer should be clearly mentioned at the beginning of the
document to avoid any future IETF proposal, based on this document, in the
scope of this disclaimer; (3)     A clarification of this disclaimer is needed.
Indeed, this disclaimer is closing many useful use-cases like E2E telemetry
(i.e., between customer device/application and provided service) for a service
provider or, if I understand correctly this disclaimer, Telemetry based
management of a personal IoT network (e.g., at home) by an end-user.

The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text improvements)
with the document:

Some references need to be updated but this should be done during the RFC
Editor process.

Best regards,

JMC.