Skip to main content

IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-14
review-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-14-artart-lc-sparks-2025-12-19-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team ART Area Review Team (artart)
Deadline 2026-01-06
Requested 2025-12-16
Authors Carlos Pignataro , Adrian Farrel , Tal Mizrahi
I-D last updated 2026-06-30 (Latest revision 2026-01-28)
Completed reviews Genart IETF Last Call review of -03 by Roni Even (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -04 by Tim Chown (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -14 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -14 by Kyle Rose (diff)
Rtgdir IETF Last Call review of -14 by Mach Chen (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -15 by Tim Chown (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization by ART Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/Gbid8BFu5q_-EjCIkQXYbp2CR6g
Reviewed revision 14 (document currently at 17)
Result Ready
Completed 2025-12-19
review-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-14-artart-lc-sparks-2025-12-19-00
I've chosen "Ready" specifically scoped to this being an ART Area Review team
response.

There are no ART area specific concerns to address in the draft.

I don't object to this draft going forward, but as an individual participant I
also don't support it.

I don't see it making the conversations around the topics easier or clearer,
but I also don't see that it will make things worse beyond befuddled
conversation participants having one more document to read. There appears to be
support from people having conversations on these topics at the moment, so I'm
probably in the rough (though I see Tim's OPSDIR review and I have a lot of
sympathy for it). I don't agree with this kind of use of the BCP subseries, but
that's already established.

I remember going through the approval process for RFC6291 and this is giving me
unpleasant flashbacks. I hope the current IESG has an easier time of it.