Last Call Review of draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-10
review-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-10-opsdir-lc-martinez-2017-05-03-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2017-05-04
Requested 2017-04-20
Other Reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -10 by Adrian Farrel (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Derek Atkins (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -10 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -11 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Carlos Martinez
Review review-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-10-opsdir-lc-martinez-2017-05-03
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/M2hY7tG1ticeC3KwJHb68NSbl40
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 12)
Review result Has Issues
Draft last updated 2017-05-03
Review completed: 2017-05-03

Review
review-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases-10-opsdir-lc-martinez-2017-05-03

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational
aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call
may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors
and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call
comments.

Review result: Ready with issues

First of all I would like to thank the authors for their hard work and
the insight they offer in this document. I'm a sort of outsider to the
source routing scene but I have been following it for some time.

After reading the document I am left with the impression that the case
for the IPv6 dataplane is being pushed just too hard. I´m not saying
that there is no case but that the document tries just too hard at it,
making it unnecessarily hard to read.

The document heavily references active drafts that have yet to become
RFCs, making it hard for me to give a full "Ready" status

I'm a bit concerned about the use of the word "obvious" as it is used in
Section 2.1. What is obvious today may not be in one, two or three years
from now.

Finally, and this is just an IMHO, the cases are presented from a "33
thousand feet view". I feel this doesn´t help someone just coming on
board the topic and I believe the document would highly benefit from a
more detailed, more specific and developed use case.

Thanks again!

-Carlos