Last Call Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained-03
review-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained-03-genart-lc-sparks-2017-09-20-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-09-20
Requested 2017-09-06
Authors Qin Wu, Will LIU, Adrian Farrel
Draft last updated 2017-09-20
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Joseph Salowey (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -03 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -03 by Dave Sinicrope (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -04 by Joseph Salowey (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained-03-genart-lc-sparks-2017-09-20
Reviewed rev. 03 (document currently at 05)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2017-09-20

Review
review-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained-03-genart-lc-sparks-2017-09-20

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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained-03

Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2017-09-20
IETF LC End Date: 2017-09-20
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready for publication as an Informational RFC

This is well written. Hopefully it will help avoid, or at least shorten, rehash of arguments about choosing the right level of abstraction for service models.

I don't have text to suggest, but please look at the first bullet of section 5. The explanation here was less helpful than the other bullets. Demonstrating the confusion due to the reuse of the word "service" doesn't help clarify the confusion. I wonder if there's more conversation that hasn't been captured that this paragraph is alluding to.

(nit) I also suggest raising the level of abstraction in the security consideration section where it currently lists authorization, authentication, and encryption by speaking initially to what, and calling the how out as a detail.