Early Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis-01
review-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis-01-tsvart-early-eggert-2026-01-22-00

# tsvart-early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis-01

CC @larseggert

This document has been reviewed as part of the transport
area review team's ongoing effort to review key IETF
documents. These comments were written primarily for the
transport area directors, but are copied to the
document's authors and WG to allow them to address any
issues raised and also to the IETF discussion list for
information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors
should consider this review as part of the last-call
comments they receive. Please always CC tsv-art@ietf.org
if you reply to or forward this review.

Thanks to Joel M. Halpern for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/Zk5kYBtp7lz7li3BYYQZfnrCBVM).

## Comments

### "Abstract", paragraph 2
```
     creation and introduces a requirement to include an "Operational
     Considerations" section in new RFCs in the IETF Stream.
```
Oh please no. We have been down this road several times in the last decades.
Not all IETF RFCs need this section, no matter how much the originating area
may claim otherwise. If an spec needs one, there is ample opportunity during
IETF and then IESG review to flag missing operations coverage and have it be
added. OPS isn't SEC (and even for SEC there are quite a few specs for which
that section isn't needed.)

This document provides **no** evidence that would motivate why this additional
work is something that needs to be put on all IETF WGs **now**. The IETF is
already famously slow. Making all work go slower by putting an onus on all WGs
to do busy-work for the OPS area is not moving us forward, no matter how good
and important it would make the OPS area feel.

### Section 3, paragraph 0
```
  3.  Documentation Requirements for IETF Specifications
```
Remove this section. Rephrase the rest of the document to make recommendations
to authors who **choose to** discuss operations and manageability aspects in
their documents **because it makes sense for them**.

### Rest

The rest of the document seems reasonable for a the stage in the process it is
in.

### Too many authors

The document has six authors, which exceeds the recommended author limit. Has
the sponsoring AD agreed that this is appropriate?

### Inclusive language

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

 * Term `master`; alternatives might be `active`, `central`, `initiator`,
 `leader`, `main`,
   `orchestrator`, `parent`, `primary`, `server` (matched `master` rule, pattern
   ((\bmaster\w*\b)\w*))

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Typos

#### Section 5, paragraph 9
```
-    Protocol Exension.  Often an individual network element is not aware
+    Protocol Extension.  Often an individual network element is not aware
+               +
```

### Uncited references

Uncited references: `[IESG-STATEMENT]` and `[NEMOPS-WORKSHOP]`.

### Outdated references

Document references `draft-ietf-lamps-dilithium-certificates`, but that has
been published as `RFC9881{quote}.

Document references `draft-ietf-nmop-network-incident-yang-06`, but `-07` is
the latest available revision.

Document references `draft-ietf-tcpm-prr-RFC6937bis`, but that has been
published as `RFC9937{quote}.

Document references `draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-14`, but `-15` is
the latest available revision.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF]. You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool