Last Call Review of draft-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-06
review-ietf-spring-oam-usecase-06-genart-lc-resnick-2017-06-28-00

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-spring-oam-usecase-06
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2017-06-28
IETF LC End Date: 2017-06-30
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Not Ready for publication as Informational, but might be Ready for
publication as Proposed Standard

Major issues:

This is an admittedly unusual review. I have read through the entire document,
and the technical work seems fine, but is well beyond my technical expertise,
so I can't really comment on the technical correctness. However, it is
absolutely clear to me that this is *not* a "use case" document at all and I
don't think it's appropriate as an Informational document. This is clearly a
*specification* of a path monitoring system. It gives guidances as to required,
recommended, and optional parameters, and specifies how to use different
protocol pieces. It is at the very least what RFC 2026 refers to as an
"Applicability Statement (AS)" (see RFC 2026, sec. 3.2). It *might* be a BCP,
but it is not strictly giving "common guidelines for policies and operations"
(2026, sec. 5), so I don't really think that's right, and instead this should
be offered for Proposed Standard. Either way, I think Informational is not
correct. Importantly, I think there is a good likelihood that this document has
not received the appropriate amount of review; people tend to ignore
Informational "use case" documents, and there have been no Last Call comments
beyond Joel's RTG Area Review. Even in IESG review, an Informational document
only takes the sponsoring AD to approve; every other AD can summarily ignore
the document, or even ballot ABSTAIN, and the document will still be published
(though that does not normally happen). This document should have much more
than that level of review. I strongly recommend to the WG and AD that this
document be withdrawn as an Informational document and resubmitted for Proposed
Standard and have that level of review and scrutiny applied to it.

Minor issues:

None.

Nits/editorial comments:

This document refers to RFC 4379, which has been obsoleted by RFC 8029. It
seems like the references should be updated.