Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-enterprise-profile-26
review-ietf-tictoc-ptp-enterprise-profile-26-intdir-telechat-pauly-2024-05-09-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-enterprise-profile
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 26)
Type Telechat Review
Team Internet Area Directorate (intdir)
Deadline 2024-05-10
Requested 2024-04-30
Requested by Éric Vyncke
Authors Douglas Arnold , Heiko Gerstung
I-D last updated 2024-05-09
Completed reviews Intdir Telechat review of -26 by Tommy Pauly
Secdir Last Call review of -24 by Tero Kivinen (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -24 by Susan Hares (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -24 by Tim Chown (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tommy Pauly
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-enterprise-profile by Internet Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/LFqO0m9YeK5gAlaEr25cWgcVLMk
Reviewed revision 26
Result Almost ready
Completed 2024-05-09
review-ietf-tictoc-ptp-enterprise-profile-26-intdir-telechat-pauly-2024-05-09-00
This is a review of draft-ietf-tictoc-ptp-enterprise-profile for INTDIR
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/)

Overall, the document does need an editorial pass for clarity, and
typos/grammar. Much of this can and should be done by the RFC editor, but it
did make it a bit difficult to read. I’ve included some obvious nits at the
bottom of this review, but a more thorough pass is needed.

The abstract refers to “an IPv4 or IPv6 Enterprise information system
environment”. However, I don’t see “Enterprise information system environment”
defined or referred to elsewhere. I would suggest either elaborating on this
term of art, or potentially simplifying it to “an IPv4 or IPv6 enterprise
network”.

The introduction (section 1) does not discuss enterprise networks at all, or
give context on what this document itself is about. It provides background,
which is fine as an introduction sub-section, but I would suggest that the
content of the “problem statement” section 4 be moved up to the start of the
introduction.

Beyond readability and clarity, I don’t see particular issues with regards to
the INTDIR review criteria; the handling of IPv4/IPv6, NAT, multicast, etc,
seem appropriate.

Nits:
Section 1
“in stead” -> “instead”

Section 6
typo on “aloted” -> “allotted”
“Ipv6” -> “IPv6”